5th Circuit Issues Narrow Stay Of Injunction Against Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Law

As has been widely reported (CNN), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals early today in United States v. State of Texas, (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2021) temporarily lifted the Texas federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. An appeal was filed by Texas and by three intervenors who planned to sue under the new law. In its motion (full text) filed yesterday, Texas said:

The State respectfully requests an emergency stay pending appeal ...  and an administrative stay as soon as possible to prevent it from being held in contempt for the actions of third parties it cannot and does not control.

In its motion, Texas argued in part:

[S]tate court clerks are now enjoined from “accepting,” “docketing,” or “maintaining” any S.B. 8 case, ... but “[t]he longstanding rule in Texas is that an instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk, regardless of whether or not” a clerk adds “a file mark.”... Thus, an S.B. 8 suit “is ‘filed’ when it is tendered to the clerk,” regardless of the clerk’s actions.... Once such a suit is filed, clerks can be accused of “accepting,” “docketing,” and “maintaining” it, especially given the district court’s failure to define the terms it used. Put simply, there is no way for the State to ensure compliance with this injunction and avoid contempt proceedings.

In its decision today, the 5th Circuit apparently focused on this narrow concern. Its order provides:

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is temporarily held in abeyance pending further order by this motions panel. Appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion by 5 pm on Tuesday, October 12, 2021.

IT IS ORDERED that Intervenors’ motion for a temporary administrative stay pending the court’s consideration of the emergency motion is GRANTED.

Federal District Court Enjoins Texas' Controversial "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Oct. 6, 2021), a Texas federal district court in a 113-page decision, preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Texas S.B. 8, the state's "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to prevent the Texas law from going into effect while its constitutionality was being litigated. Today's decision comes in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. In it, the court explores at length the standing and redressability issues that have been seen as impediments to courts' reviewing the law that effectively bans almost all abortions after six weeks of gestation.  The court said in part:

A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. With full knowledge that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme whereby it created a private cause of action in which private citizens with no personal interest in or connection to a person seeking an abortion would be able to interfere with that right using the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials.....

This Court finds that S.B. 8 concretely injures the United States by prohibiting federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their obligations to provide abortion-related services and subjecting federal employees and contractors to civil liability for aiding and abetting the performance of an abortion....

The next question is whether the United States suffers an injury-in-fact such that it has standing to challenge a potential violation of Constitutional rights that not only impacts federal agencies, but the public at large.... The United States has standing to file suit in parens patriae for probable violations of its citizens’ Constitutional rights.... [W]hen, as here, a state appears to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a scheme designed to evade federal judicial review, the United States possesses sovereign interest in preventing such a harm. This interest is sufficient to establish a particularized injury....

... [I]n the alternative, ... the concepts underpinning In Re Debs and its progeny likewise establish a particularized injury to sovereign interests of the United States.... Debs supports standing where the government’s interest is preventing harms to “the general welfare” and the “public at large."... 

However, this Court notes that were Debs’s progeny to be read narrowly to support standing only in cases involving interstate commerce, the United States has likewise demonstrated an interest sufficient to establish standing..... By extending liability to persons anywhere in the country, S.B. 8’s structure all but ensures that it will implicate commerce across state lines.... In addition to imposing liability on those coming into Texas, the law has also already had the effect of pushing individuals seeking abortions into other states.... This stream of individuals across state lines burdens clinics in nearby states and impedes pregnant individuals in surrounding states from accessing abortions due to backlogs.....

[T]he State’s scheme to disguise its enforcement role and disclaim accountability collapses upon cursory inspection. The State enacted S.B. 8 and created a private enforcement scheme that clothes private individuals with the State’s enforcement power.... That delegation alone would have been sufficient to show state action. The practical operation of an S.B. 8 lawsuit in Texas courts deepens the State’s enforcement role.... [T]he State plays a role at every step of an S.B. 8’s lifecycle in Texas courts. A private cause of action enforcement scheme is meaningless without state action.... An injunction properly runs against the State....

... [T]he State has intentionally crafted a statute to employ private citizens as its proxy. Put simply, the State’s participation in enforcing S.B. 8 lawsuits amounts to actionable state action....

... [P]rivate individuals enforcing S.B. 8 are properly regarded as state actors.... The private individuals who bring S.B. 8 lawsuits are [also] in active concert with the State to enforce S.B. 8....

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas, including its officers, officials, agents, employees, and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 171.201–.212, including accepting or docketing, maintaining, hearing, resolving, awarding damages in, enforcing judgments in, enforcing any administrative penalties in, and administering any lawsuit brought pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201–.212. For clarity, this Court preliminarily enjoins state court judges and state court clerks who have the power to enforce or administer Texas Health and Safety Code §§171.201– .212.

As set out above, this Court has the authority to enjoin the private individuals who act on behalf of the State or act in active concert with the State.... However, the Court need not craft an injunction that runs to the future actions of private individuals per se, but, given the scope of the injunctions discussed here and supported by law, those private individuals’ actions are proscribed to the extent their attempts to bring a civil action ... would necessitate state action that is now prohibited.

IT IS ORDERED that the State of Texas must publish this preliminary injunction on all of its public-facing court websites with a visible, easy-to-understand instruction to the public that S.B. 8 lawsuits will not be accepted by Texas courts.....

CNN reports on today's decision and notes that quickly after the decision, Texas filed a notice of appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Texas Sues EEOC Over Interpretation of Transgender Rights

The state of Texas this week filed suit in federal district court challenging an EEOC Guidance document (full text) issued in June interpreting the application of the Supreme Court's Bostock decision to rights of transgender employees under Title VII.  The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. EEOC, (ND TX, filed 9/20/2021), contends that the EEOC's interpretation of requirements for  usage of bathrooms, dress codes and pronoun usage misstates the law, violates the First Amendment and was adopted without following proper procedures. The Texas Attorney General's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

DOJ Seeks TRO To Prevent Suits Under Texas "Heartbeat" Abortion Bill

After filing suit last week in a Texas federal district court to prevent the state of Texas from enforcing SB 8, Texas' "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages, the Department of Justice yesterday filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The motion and memorandum of law (full text) in United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, filed 9/14/2021), contends in part:

[T]he Court could enjoin any person who files suit under S.B. 8 from prosecuting his or her claim. Here, an injunction against Texas can run to the individuals who file civil enforcement actions because, at a minimum, those individuals would qualify as “persons who are in active concert or participation with” the State. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C). The purpose of Rule 65 is to prevent defendants from creating schemes to evade judicial review and enforcement by ensuring that injunctive relief “not only binds the parties defendants but also those identified with them in interest, in ‘privity’ with them, represented by them or subject to their control.”

New York Times reports on the filing.

Justice Department Sues Texas To Block Enforcement Of "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit in a Texas federal district court to prevent the state of Texas from enforcing SB 8, Texas' "heartbeat" abortion ban that is enforced solely through private civil actions for statutory damages. The complaint (full text) in United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, filed 9/9/2021), contends:

Texas enacted S.B. 8 in open defiance of the Constitution.... Because S.B. 8 clearly violates the Constitution, Texas adopted an unprecedented scheme “to insulate the State from responsibility”...  by making the statute harder to challenge in court....

The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review. The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated.

The complaint contends that state action is present, even though the statute relies on private enforcement:

[W]hile Texas has gone to unprecedented lengths to cloak its attack on constitutionally protected rights behind a nominally private cause of action, it nonetheless has compelled its judicial branch to serve an enforcer’s role. “State action, as that phrase is understood for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, refers to exertions of state power in all forms.” ...

Under the state-action doctrine, private actors also may be found to function as agents or arms of the state itself and thus are bound by the Constitution.

The complaint also alleges a more direct impact on the federal government:

S.B. 8 exposes federal personnel and grantees to liability for carrying out their federal obligations to provide access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies and interferes with federal contracts and grants with third-party providers who are obligated under their agreements to provide abortion-related services but refuse to do so to avoid liability under S.B. 8.

Attorney General Garland also delivered remarks (full text) announcing the lawsuit. Dallas Morning News has additional background and reactions.

Supreme Court Grants Review On Role Of Spiritual Advisor In Execution Chamber

In Ramirez v. Collier, (5th Cir., Sept. 6, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 2-1, affirmed a Texas federal district court's refusal to grant a stay of execution to a convicted murderer who is suing for permission to have his pastor lay hands on him as he receives a lethal injection and dies. (Background from New York Times.) Texas allows spiritual advisors to be present in the execution chamber, but they may not physically touch the prisoner nor speak. Judges Owen and Higginbotham each filed an opinion concurring in the per curiam order denying a stay.  Judge Higginbotham said in part:

[T]he complexities attending the administration of drugs in the execution procedure and its failures expose the risks of non-medical hands on the body of a person undergoing the procedure. This is plainly a humane effort with constitutional footing with steps long side those of spiritual needs.

Judge Dennis dissented arguing that petitioner has made a strong showing that the state's policy substantially burdens his religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. He said in part:

The State has not shown why its policy of prohibiting even a brief audible prayer and any physical touching is the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest in this specific case. Rather, the State has largely offered general concerns about security. I do not doubt that these concerns are legitimate and important. But that is not enough to satisfy RLUIPA’s “exceptionally demanding” standard.... 

However this evening, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution and agreed to review the case. (Ramirez v. Collier, (Docket No. 21-5592, cert. granted 9/8/2021) (Order List). The Court's order granting certiorari calls for a briefing schedule that allows the case to be argued in October or November 2021.

Mexico's Supreme Court Legalizes Abortion In State Bordering Texas

On Tuesday, Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation held unconstitutional several provisions of the Penal Code of the state of Coahuila that criminalizes abortion.  According to a Court press release (full text in Spanish), the Court unanimously declared Article 196 of the Penal Code of Coahuila unconstitutional.  The section criminalizes voluntarily having an abortion or or causing a woman, with her consent, to have an abortion. The court said the section violates the right of a woman to choose. 

The court also invalidated Article 198 that prohibits health care workers from assisting in an abortion, and Article 199 that limits abortion in the case of rape, artificial insemination or implantation to 12 weeks. Finally the Court invalidated as discriminatory Article 224 that sets a lower penalty for rape between spouses, common-law partners and civil partners than for rape by others.

The decision was unanimous on the part of all 10 Justices. Because the decision was by more than 8 votes, its reasoning is binding on all federal and local judges. 

Reuters reports on the decision, pointing out that the state of Coahuila borders Texas which just effectively banned most abortions. This could make the state a destination for Texas women seeking abortions.

Satanic Temple Seeks RFRA Exemption From Texas Abortion Restrictions

In a press release last week, The Satanic Temple announced that it has sent a letter to the FDA arguing that its members should have unrestricted access to the medical abortion-inducing drug Mifepristone.  The move is an attempt to counter the new "heartbeat" abortion restrictions in Texas. As reported by KVUE News:

The Satanic Temple argues its members should have access to the pills under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same law that allows Native Americans to access peyote for use in rituals. SB 8 “imposes an undue burden on the ability of TST members to undergo the Satanic Abortion Ritual” within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, the group said.

“I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton – who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about religious liberty issues in other states – will be proud to see that Texas’s robust religious liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves said in a statement.

Supreme Court, 5-4, Refuses To Enjoin Texas Heartbeat Abortion Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in a 5-4 decision refused to prevent Texas' heartbeat abortion law (S.B. 8) from continuing in effect while its constitutionality is being litigated. The law bans abortions if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat-- usually at around 6 weeks of a pregnancy. An unusual provision in the law allows it to be enforced only through civil actions by individuals, and not by state officials. The unsigned majority opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (US Sup. Ct., Sept. 1, 2021) states in part:

The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. For example ... it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention...

[T]his order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, saying in part:

The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.

The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner....

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I recognize that Texas’s law delegates the State’s power to prevent abortions not to one person (such as a district attorney) or to a few persons (such as a group of government officials or private citizens) but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference. That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s “shadow-docket” decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process.

CNN reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Asked To Prevent Texas Heartbeat Abortion Ban From Taking Effect Sept. 1

Yesterday several abortion providers filed an Emergency Application (full text of Application in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (US Sup. Ct., filed 8/30/2021)) with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to prevent Texas S.B. 8 from going into effect on Sept. 1. The Texas law bans performing or inducing an abortion if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat. This often occurs at 6 weeks of pregnancy. The law also allows any private person to bring a civil action against a physician who has violated the statute, and against anyone who knowingly aids or abets the abortion. SCOTUSblog has more on the case.

Texas Governor's Order Invalid; Catholic Charities Can Continue Work With Migrants

In United States v. State of Texas, (WD TX, Aug. 26, 2021), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause grounds Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Executive Order which prohibits, during the COVID pandemic, anyone except federal, state or local law enforcement officials from providing transportation to migrants who have been detained for crossing the border illegally or are subject to expulsion. The Order directs the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to stop any vehicle suspected to be in violation of this Order and send it back to its point of origin if a violation is confirmed. The court concluded that enforcement of the Order would require state officials to decide whether a person has been detained for crossing the border illegally. It went on:

Because the Order authorizes DPS agents to make and act on immigration determinations, the province of federal law, it is facially invalid.

According to The Tablet, this decision allows Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley and other organizations to continue their work with migrants.

5th Circuit En Banc Upholds Texas "Dismemberment Abortion" Ban

In Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, by a vote of 9-5 (with 3 judges recused), upheld a Texas law enacted in 2017 that bans abortions performed through the standard dilation and evacuation procedure-- a procedure that the Texas law terms "dismemberment abortions." The majority opinion joined by 7 of the 9 judges said in part:

SB8 refers to the prohibited method as "live dismemberment" because doctors use forceps to separate, terminate, and remove the fetus. SB8 requires doctors to use alternative fetal-death methods. The district court declared SB8 facially unconstitutional. It held that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women, primarily because it determined that SB8 amounted to a ban on all D&E abortions.... Instead, the record shows that doctors can safely perform D&Es and comply with SB8 using methods that are already in widespread use.....

The safety, efficacy, and availability of suction to achieve fetal death during abortions in weeks 15 and 16 combined with the safety, efficacy, and availability of digoxin to do the same in weeks 18–22 mean that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to carry their heavy burden of showing that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women in the relevant circumstances.

Chief Judge Owen and Judge Ho each filed a concurring opinion. Judge Dennis filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Judges Stewart and Graves, saying in part:

Today, in a Sisyphean return to form, our court upholds a Texas law that, under the guise of regulation, makes it a felony to perform the most common and safe abortion procedure employed during the second trimester. In an opinion that fortunately lacks fully binding precedential effect, the en banc plurality disregards the two major lessons of June Medical. First, it ignores on-point Supreme Court precedent in multiple ways....  [T]he Supreme Court has already decided this exact case, holding that a Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it could be interpreted to be the sort of ban that the Texas statute openly embodies.... Second, ... the en banc plurality fails to defer to the district court’s well-reasoned and well-supported factual findings regarding the burdens and benefits associated with the Texas law... 

Judge Higginson filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Judge Costa. Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Fraud Claim Against Catholic Diocese Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, (TX App, Aug. 11, 2021), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit alleging that a Catholic diocese committed fraud when it failed to follow its own internal policies for responding to clergy sex-abuse claims after plaintiff reported that he had been sexually abused by a Diocesan priest. The court said in part:

[A] court would have to evaluate whether ... the Dallas Diocese implemented its policy under the canonical meanings of "minor," "sexual abuse," and "vulnerable adult." This would necessitate a secular investigation into the Dallas Diocese's understanding of those terms.... Such an inquiry would cause a court to evaluate whether the Dallas Diocese properly applied canon law and "interlineate its own views" of canonical terms....

Furthermore, in the context of a religious organization's choices in investigating and regulating its formal leaders and people ordained for religious duties, "any investigation would necessarily put to question the internal decision making of a church judicatory body."...

Court Enjoins Requirement That Christian Doctors Perform Gender Transition Procedures And Abortions

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (ND TX, Aug. 9, 2021), on remand from the 5th Circuit, a Texas federal district court permanently enjoined enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act or implementing regulations against Christian health care providers and health plans in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions. The court said in part:

No party disputes that the current [Affordable Care Act] Section 1557 regulatory scheme threatens to burden Christian Plaintiffs’ religious exercise ... by placing substantial pressure on Christian Plaintiffs, in the form of fines and civil liability, to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures and abortions....

In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected mootness and other justiciability arguments that stemmed from shifting regulations while the case wound its way through the courts. 

5th Circuit: Courtroom Invocations Do Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, (5th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a Texas district court's declaratory judgment order which concluded that a a Justice of the Peace's program under which court sessions are opened with a prayer from a volunteer chaplain violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Attendees may to step out of the courtroom before the ceremony if they wish. The appeals court held that official capacity claims under 42 USC §1983 are barred, and that FFRF's individual capacity claims are likely to fail. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court has held that our Nation’s history and tradition allow legislatures to use tax dollars to pay for chaplains who perform sectarian prayers before sessions. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). If anything, Judge Mack’s chaplaincy program raises fewer questions under the Establishment Clause because it uses zero tax dollars and operates on a volunteer basis....

It’s true that Marsh and Town of Greece involved a legislature’s chaplains, not a justice of the peace’s chaplains. But it’s unclear why that matters, given the abundant history and tradition of courtroom prayer.

Washington Times reports on the decision.

Enforcement of Islamic Pre-Nup Challenged On Appeal

An appeal was filed last month in a Texas state appellate court challenging a trial court's enforcement of an arbitration clause in an Islamic pre-nuptial agreement. The petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Ayad, (TX App., filed 6/22/2021) (full text) contends that the agreement is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and was involuntarily executed. The petition contends in part:

The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to properly analyze the law when it validated and enforced the Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement and compelled arbitration in front of a Muslim Court applying solely Islamic Law....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via  Religionlaw for the lead.]

5th Circuit: Ban On Proselytizing At Outdoor Market Violates Free Speech Rigths

In Denton v. City of El Paso, Texas, (5th Cir., July 6, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to a Texas federal district court ordering it to grant a preliminary injunction barring El Paso from prohibiting religious proselytizing at the weekly outdoor El Paso Art and Farmers Market. The city's rules bar fundraising, political campaigning and religious proselytizing from the market. The court held that these exclusions are content-based, and concluded:

It is unclear whether the City has asserted a compelling government interest. We need not decide this issue because, even assuming that it did assert a compelling government interest, a prior restraint of speech based on a viewpoint is unlikely to be the least restrictive means of regulation available.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments From Judge Who Refuses To Officiate At Same-Sex Weddings

 Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Umphress v. Hall. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Texas federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds (Umphress v. Hall,(ND TX, Nov. 10, 2020), a suit by a Texas judge who was seeking to prevent future action by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who refuse to officiatae at same-sex weddings. Bloomberg Law reports on the case.

5th Circuit Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Teacher Who Required Writing The Pledge

In Oliver v. Arnold, (5th Cir., June 29, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision  dismissed a high school teacher's appeal of a Texas federal district court's refusal to grant his summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The suit was brought by his former student who refused on religious grounds to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The student alleged that the teacher attempted to require her to transcribe the Pledge and when she refused, he continued to retaliate against her in class. The majority said in part:

Because Arnold seeks to have this court resolve the very factual disputes that the district court found to be genuine and properly submitted for trial on the merits, which we do not have jurisdiction to do, we grant Oliver’s motion and DISMISS the appeal.

Judge Duncan dissented, saying in part:

[C]onsider the implications of the majority’s approach. It sends to trial a § 1983 claim based on a student’s objection to a written assignment, merely because there is a question about the teacher’s motive for giving it. One can imagine where this approach might lead. It is not a happy place.

Cockfighting Ban Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Hinds v. State of Texas,(TX App., June 24, 2021), a Texas state appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that the state's ban on cockfighting and on training animals for cockfighting violates the Establishment Clause. Petitioner, who was convicted of violating Texas Penal Code §42.105, according to the court, argued that:

paganism is a “nature worshiping religion” and that “animal rights laws are a clandestinely designed effort to institute laws respecting the establishment of the Pagan religion and animal worship.