M: Please give me the skeleton, bare bones, boilerplate, or however you want to phrase it, of how you would sue, as a third party, the administration of the United States for selective application of a law. As an example, go online and check. Donald has been either threatening or taking part in numerous attempts to take out various media companies for things including lying, even when they didn't. At the same time, Fox News is demonstrably lying on a regular basis, and yet gets no pushback. Don't address that specifically. I just wanted that to be an example of what I was trying to do. It's a specific example of the generic situation where there is... Okay, here's another example. Again, go online. They are repeatedly attempting to go after certain people who have been specifically described by Donald as being his enemy, and trying to get them charged with various property issues, about having a second home and getting a mortgage on that, and then acting as though it's a foregone conclusion as they're guilty, and they're guilty in that process. Meanwhile, it has been demonstrated that multiple people on his cabinet have, again, demonstrably participated in the same thing and are not being prosecuted. So how would a third party legally address this in a way that the court would be able to handle? Victory is secondary to getting the issue public, and getting solid steps forward. Future efforts put onto the record.

G: Below is a skeleton / blueprint for how one might attempt (purely as a third party) to challenge selective enforcement or selective prosecution by the U.S. government. This is not legal advice, but an outline of how litigators sometimes frame such cases. You would need to adapt it strongly to your facts, jurisdiction, strategic goals, and resources.

Basic Legal Doctrines & Hurdles to Keep in Mind (Checklist)

Before you draft anything, these are critical obstacles that typically kill such claims:

Doctrine / Barrier What it requires or prevents Key cases or authority
Sovereign immunity / limited waiver The U.S. government cannot generally be sued unless Congress has provided a waiver. E.g. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for torts by federal employees (but with many exceptions).
Discretionary-function exception Even under FTCA, many acts (especially in enforcement decisions) are “discretionary,” not subject to suit.
Case or controversy / standing The plaintiff must show a concrete injury, traceable to the enforcement decision, and that a favorable ruling will redress it.
Timing / ripeness / mootness The claim must be ripe and not speculative or hypothetical.
Qualified immunity / prosecutorial immunity Individual government actors (e.g. prosecutors) often have immunity for their exercise of discretion.
Burden of proof Selective enforcement / prosecution claims impose a heavy burden on plaintiff to show discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact. E.g. Supreme Court recognition of selective prosecution doctrine, but courts are reluctant to allow broad open-ended suits.
Separation of powers / political question doctrine Courts are sometimes reluctant to second-guess enforcement decisions, which may implicate executive branch discretion.

Because of these obstacles, many selective enforcement claims are dismissed early, or only survive in narrow circumstances.

Elements of a Selective Enforcement / Selective Prosecution Claim

If you’re going to build a complaint, here is a rough “checklist” of what you’d want to allege (and eventually prove):

  1. Neutral statute or regulation
    The law being selectively enforced must be generally applicable (i.e. on its face, it doesn’t single out a particular person or class).

  2. Disparate treatment
    The plaintiff must show that others similarly situated (but outside the protected class or political target) have not been prosecuted or have been treated differently.

  3. Intentional discriminatory purpose
    It is not enough to show disparity; the plaintiff must allege and ultimately prove that the decision to enforce (or prosecute) was motivated by an illegitimate factor (e.g. political animus, viewpoint, class bias) rather than a legitimate government objective.

  4. “But for” causation
    The plaintiff must plausibly allege that, but for the improper motive, the enforcement action would not have been taken.

  5. Injury / standing / redressability
    The plaintiff must show that the selective enforcement (or threat thereof) causes a real injury (e.g. chilling of speech, reputational, economic, or the cost of responding to the enforcement). And that a court ruling can remedy or constrain future misconduct.

  6. Exhaustion / procedural prerequisites
    If statutes or rules require administrative exhaustion or some pre‐enforcement step, those must be satisfied (or be shown inapplicable).

Template / Skeleton Complaint (Federal Court)

Below is a bare-bones structure (with placeholders). Use local rules and proper form for your jurisdiction.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[District / Division]

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, and [named federal officers in their official capacities],
Defendants.

Civ. No. [XX-XXX]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND (OPTIONALLY) DAMAGES

Introduction

  1. This is an action under the Constitution (e.g. Fifth Amendment Equal Protection, First Amendment) and applicable federal statutes (if any) challenging the selective enforcement / prosecution by the executive branch against Plaintiff, based on impermissible animus (e.g. political viewpoint).
  2. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policy or practice is unconstitutional, injunctive relief to halt such selective enforcement, and appropriate relief.

Jurisdiction and Venue
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under [e.g. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), possibly Bivens, or other statutory statutes].
4. Venue is proper under [venue statute] because [acts occurred in district / government actors reside there / etc.].

Parties
5. Plaintiff is [name, address, capacity].
6. Defendant United States is the sovereign.
7. Defendant [Officer A], [Position], is sued in official capacity (and perhaps individual capacity), responsible for enforcement decisions under [statute/regulation].
8. (If naming individual prosecutors or agents) Defendant [Prosecutor B], [Office], is an enforcement officer with discretion over charging / prosecution / investigation in [geographic / subject domain].

Factual Allegations
9. Describe the law(s) or regulation(s) under which enforcement is threatened or has been initiated against Plaintiff.
10. Describe the enforcement steps taken (investigations, threats, charging decisions, public statements, press releases, etc.).
11. Identify a class or group of people similarly situated (in terms of facts, conduct) who have not been prosecuted or have been treated differently by Defendants, though they committed the same (or more serious) violations.
12. Show that Plaintiff is similarly situated to those non-prosecuted persons in all relevant respects.
13. Provide facts (direct or circumstantial) supporting a plausible inference of discriminatory motive (e.g. communications, internal memos, public statements, timing correlated with political statements, departures from ordinary enforcement practice).
14. Alleged that “but for” the impermissible motive, Plaintiff would not have been targeted.
15. Plaintiff has suffered, or imminently will suffer, a concrete injury: [e.g. cost of legal defense, chilling of speech or association, reputational damage, financial loss].
16. Plaintiff has no adequate alternative remedy (or the harm is irreparable) and bringing this case is timely.

Causes of Action
Count 1 – Violation of the Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment (selective enforcement / selective prosecution)
17. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1–16.
18. The enforcement action constitutes discrimination on the basis of [impermissible classification: e.g. political viewpoint, association, race, religion, etc.].
19. The decision to enforce was motivated by improper discriminatory purpose, not a legitimate law enforcement objective.
20. But for that motive, enforcement would not have occurred.
21. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to relief.

Count 2 – (If applicable) First Amendment (chilling effect / viewpoint discrimination in law enforcement)
22. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1–16.
23. The enforcement threat or action is chilling protected speech or association, based on Plaintiff’s viewpoint or expression.
24. The government’s selective targeting is not narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest and is impermissibly overbroad, etc.
25. Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

(Optional) Count 3 – (If a statute allows) Bivens or damages claim
26. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1–16.
27. To the extent permitted under [case law], Plaintiff seeks damages against individual Defendants in their personal capacities for violation of constitutional rights.
28. (Address defenses such as qualified immunity.)

Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ selective enforcement / prosecution policy or practice violates the Constitution.
B. A preliminary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the statute / regulation selectively against Plaintiff (or others similarly situated).
C. (If permissible) Award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against individual Defendants.
D. Costs, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Jury Demand
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Key Strategic & Evidentiary Tasks

Possible Responses / Defenses Government Will Raise

Practical Considerations & Alternative Routes

If you like, I can convert this skeleton into a version tailored specifically to your media / political speech / selective enforcement example, or help you flesh it out in your jurisdiction. Do you want me to flesh that for your specific scenario?

M: I would say that pretty much all of the examples you cited are exactly that. This administration has demonstrably shown an exact targeting of enemies publicly, whether those enemies were vaguely defined so that particular targets could be slotted in, or simply as an explicit dislike. I mean, during this current government shutdown, nothing but blue-state items and things generally thought of as being Democratic with a capital D have been targeted. So, yeah, a chilling of speech basically saying, bow to the king or get kicked in the nuts, that definitely is a standing. An explicit standing. As I started reading that, it seems like starting a bill that's a waiver to allow a suit would be the better way of drawing attention to this problem than an actual suit itself. Can you argue that out against yourself so I can get an audience perspective instead of trying to take a position one way or another, which one would be the better approach? If the goal is to fix the problem rather than any kind of personal gain?

G: Here’s a structured argument vs. counter-argument comparison of the two routes —
filing a suit vs. drafting a waiver bill — focused on your stated goal: fixing the problem, not personal gain.

1. Filing a Lawsuit

(Direct confrontation route)

Pros

1. Immediate visibility.
A lawsuit creates an official docket, triggers press coverage, and can’t easily be ignored. You get a judicial record and the government is forced to respond in writing.

2. Forces discovery (if it survives dismissal).
Even limited discovery can expose communications showing political bias or misuse of authority, creating public documentation that legislators or journalists can use.

3. Can create case law.
Even if it loses, a carefully reasoned opinion becomes precedent or at least a reference point for later reform. You move the Overton window of what counts as “selective enforcement.”

4. Symbolic moral high ground.
You’re asserting that citizens should have recourse when the Executive uses enforcement as a weapon. It demonstrates personal risk for principle—an act that itself can inspire legislative momentum.

Cons

1. Standing barrier.
Federal courts usually toss generalized grievances. Unless you’re directly harmed (not just chilled as a member of the public), you’ll likely be ruled to lack standing.

2. Sovereign immunity.
Without an existing waiver, the court has no jurisdiction. You’d be dismissed before substance is ever considered.

3. Political question / discretion defense.
Courts routinely hold that enforcement priorities are “non-justiciable”—a core executive function.

4. Risk of misframing.
Media or opponents could spin the case as partisan or frivolous. That weakens the broader cause rather than strengthening it.

5. Outcome control.
You’re bound by whatever reasoning the court adopts. A loss could harden precedent against future selective enforcement claims.

2. Drafting and Advocating a Waiver Bill

(Structural reform route)

Pros

1. Attacks the root: immunity.
By legislating a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for viewpoint-based selective enforcement, you change the framework itself. That permanently opens accountability instead of relying on a one-off case.

2. Broader coalition potential.
You can build alliances across ideological lines—because both parties, sooner or later, end up on the receiving end of executive bias. It’s system-fixing, not partisan.

3. Avoids standing trap.
Congress can define who has standing, what counts as injury, and create administrative remedies first (e.g., independent review board).

4. Public education tool.
You can use the bill itself as a rhetorical weapon. Even if it never passes, its existence forces discussion: “Why does the government get immunity for political persecution?”

5. Lower personal exposure.
You’re advocating reform, not becoming the plaintiff of record. The issue—not you—stays at the center.

Cons

1. Slow and procedural.
Bills die quietly. The reform process is glacial, especially if both parties anticipate being in power again and prefer keeping immunity intact.

2. Requires legislative allies.
Without a champion inside Congress, it’s just words. That often means lobbying, organizing, or public pressure campaigns—long-term, not immediate.

3. No discovery.
You can’t subpoena or compel records through a bill proposal. So factual exposure of current misconduct remains limited.

4. No immediate remedy.
People currently harmed still lack relief; future accountability is all you get.

3. Comparative Strategic Synthesis

Objective Lawsuit Waiver Bill
Expose current misconduct Possible if discovery allowed Weak; relies on hearings/public debate
Create lasting structural fix No Yes
Survive court barriers Low chance N/A (depends on Congress)
Speed Fast to file, fast to die Slow, but cumulative
Media impact Sharp burst Sustained narrative
Risk of backfire High (adverse precedent) Moderate (political framing)

4. Neutral Assessment

If you want systemic correction, not symbolic martyrdom, the bill route is strategically stronger. It reframes the issue from “my case” to “a flaw in governance.”
You can still seed that bill with findings drawn from other people’s cases—documenting specific examples of disparate enforcement—without personally litigating.

If you want public confrontation and maximum visibility now, the lawsuit is the faster fuse. Even dismissal can ignite coverage, provided you draft it as a constitutional challenge exposing hypocrisy rather than seeking damages.

5. Hybrid Path (best compromise)

  1. File a narrowly tailored suit designed to be dismissed on standing but written to highlight the vacuum (“No statute allows redress for selective enforcement.”).
  2. Simultaneously release the draft waiver bill, citing the suit’s dismissal as proof that reform is necessary.
  3. Use the dismissal order as Exhibit A in congressional outreach and media efforts: “The court agrees the harm may exist but says it’s not authorized to act—so let’s fix that.”

That path turns judicial defeat into legislative fuel.

In short: