Whether, if a law authorizes both private and public enforcement, and a credible threat of private enforcement exists, a plaintiff may bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the law against a government official with enforcement authority

QUESTION PRESENTED Two Minnesota statutes authorize private parties to commence civil actions against others based on their speech, but also authorize criminal prosecution by county attorneys. In two different cases, plaintiffs brought Free Speech Clause pre-enforcement lawsuits against county attorneys authorized to criminally prosecute the respective laws. In both cases, the county attorneys successfully defended on the ground they would not actually prosecute under the statutes authorizing them to do so. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgments in both cases. If a law authorizes both private and public enforcement, and a credible threat of private enforcement exists, may a plaintiff bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the law against a government official with enforcement authority?