See e.g., LeClair v. Norwell, 430 Mass. 328, 333 (1999) (concluding that we do not read statutory language in isolation). The court concludes that the plaintiffs, by claiming that their constitutional rights to marry are being violated by selective enforcement of discriminatory laws, have established that they may be “persons who have themselves suffered, or who are in danger of suffering, legal harm.” Ginther v. Commissioner of Insurance, 427 Mass. 319, 322 (1998). See e.g. Constitutional First Amendment infringement cases: Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion) (concluding that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”); Romero Feliciano v. Torres Gaztambide, 836 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>); 754 Orange Ave., Inc. v. West Haven, 761 F.2d
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that given the finding that a civil servant was likely to succeed on the merits of his first amendment claim that he was demoted in violation of his associational rights a finding of irreparable harm was not an abuse of discretion holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel