Wow! I'm glad to hear about this; any peer-reviewed literature that helps show the true nature of the Witnesses is a very good thing. I wouldn't get my hopes up about a lawsuit, however.
No doubt this article makes a plausible case. But law reviews are full of plausible arguments on both sides of a question. Getting published in a law review is no guarantee of winning in court.
There are two major legal issues that I don't see addressed in the excerpts:
1. The Establishment Clause. Any inquiry into the rationality or consistency of a religion's beliefs is generally deemed an 'entanglement' with religion, which is not allowed. This would be a serious roadblock to bringing up in court the latter two objections presented:
*The organization’s current blood policy misrepresents the scope of allowed blood products; and
*The organization’s blood policy contains contradictions about autologous blood transfusions.
Note that this is a separate issue from that of free exercise, which the article addresses.
2. Freedom of Speech. Misleading argumentation--especially if it can be argued to be sincerely held--is constitutionally protected. People who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that the Holocaust didn't really happen, etc. are free to present half-truths, misquotes, and so forth. They're even free to solicit money to spread their misleading beliefs. The tort of misrepresentation requires one to enter a contract based on the misrepresentation. (And no, baptism is not considered a contract.)
I may be more optimistic after reading the article, but for now, you'll have to color me skeptical.
Even if a lawsuit is not a possibility, however, I think the article will still be useful in legal cases involving minors and transfusions, as well as in spreading general knowledge of the Witnesses in the legal community. So it is a very good thing, no doubt about that.