CA1: standing and the riot act

Ramírez v. Ramos, No. 05-1798.  Miriam Ramírez really liked the American flag.  Like most people in Puerto Rico, she is a member of the New Progress Party and a former legislature.  (I don’t know if this is true, but I get most of my information on Puerto Rico from the First Circuit’s website.)  She wanted agencies in Puerto Rico to display it.  But, in doing so, she made a scene and was arrested under the “riot act.”  P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 33, § 4522 ("’[a] use of force or violence to disturb the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence,’ so long as that act is accompanied by immediate power of execution’ and is carried out ‘by two (2) or more persons, acting together and without authority of law.’").  She was arrested.  The charges were dropped.  She wanted to continue her challenge to the riot act (stayed under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) abstention principles) but the court concludes that when the criminal charges were dismissed, she can’t make out a facial challenge, “...[b]ecause the plaintiff never stated an intention to engage in any activity that could reasonably be construed to fall within the confines of the Riot Act, she failed to satisfy even the relaxed standing requirements reserved for facial First Amendment challenges.”