Texas Top Court Gives New Trial to Death Row Inmate Because of Trial Judge's Antisemitism

 In Ex Parte Halprin, (TX Ct. Crim. App., Nov. 6, 2024), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a 6-3 decision granted a new trial to one of the so-called Texas Seven prison escapees who had been sentenced to death for murdering a police officer during the robbery of a sporting goods store shortly after their escape. The court concluded that the trial judge, Vickers Cunningham, was biased against Halprin because Halprin is Jewish.  The court said in part:

The evidence adduced in these habeas proceedings concerning Halprin’s judicial bias claim consists primarily of anti-Semitic statements attributed to Cunningham that, according to the witnesses, he made in generally private or semi-private settings rather than from the bench in open court or in chambers....

The uncontradicted evidence supports a finding that Cunningham formed an opinion about Halprin that derived from an extrajudicial factor—Cunningham’s poisonous anti-Semitism. Cunningham’s references to Halprin are not to “the fucking [murderer]” or “the filthy [criminal]” or “the [murderer] Halprin,” which might be fairly said to derive from the evidence presented at Halprin’s capital murder trial. Rather, Cunningham’s derogatory references to Halprin are expressly tied to Halprin’s Jewish identity.

Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Newell and Walker filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

This is not a case in which the action of a trial judge may just “look bad.” This is not a case in which there is merely the “appearance of impropriety.” This is a case where a person’s lifelong hatred and prejudice against Jews made him unfit to preside over this case. And that toxic viewpoint runs counter to our concept of the Rule of Law because “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.”

Thus, no precedent, rule, technicality, or excuse can justify allowing such a demonstrably biased person to constitutionally stand in judgment over a member of a class of people the judge espouses to hate. It violates our fundamental sense of fair play and the Supreme Court’s motto “Equal Justice Under Law” beneath which our precedent arises.

Judge Yeary filed a concurring opinion saying that the majority reached the correct result but used the wrong standard to reach it.  He said in part: 

... [T]he question is “not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in [the challenged judge’s] position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’”

Presiding Judge Keller, joined by Judges Keel and Slaughter filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

The Court misunderstands the law regarding disqualification of a judge for bias.  It grants Applicant relief on the basis of the trial judge’s personal views and out-of-court comments about Applicant’s religion.  But under Supreme Court precedent, in order for a judge who holds derogatory views about a defendant’s religion to be disqualified, there must be a showing that the judge’s conduct in the criminal proceedings was influenced by his derogatory views.  What a judge does can violate the Constitution.  What he thinks cannot.  Nothing in the record on habeas or at trial shows, or even suggests, that the trial judge’s views influenced how he conducted the criminal proceedings in this case.

Texas Public Radio and AP report on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges HIPPA Rules Barring Reporting of Out-of-State Abortions

As previously reported, in April of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. Yesterday, suit was filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the rules.  The complaint (full text) in Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 10/21/2024), alleges that the new privacy rules cover not only abortion, but also hormone and drug interventions for gender dysphoria and surgical procedures on an individual's reproductive system. The complaint alleges in part:

5. ... [T]he 2024 Rule purports to limit the circumstances when a HIPAA-covered entity can share information with government agencies, such as state child-welfare agencies and law enforcement agencies, both state and federal.  

6. HIPAA-covered entities that share information in contravention of HHS’s regulations incur criminal liability. 

7. Yet the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves government authority to investigate and to require disclosures concerning abuse. 

8. The 2024 Rule lacks statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court should vacate and set aside the Rule and preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Texas Judicial Conduct Commission Withdraws Reprimand of Judge Who Refused to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

As previously reported, in 2019 the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a Public Warning to Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley because she refused on religious grounds to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform other weddings. The Commission stated that her conduct cast doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge.  Hensley sued contending that the Commission's action violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as her free speech rights. In July 2024, the Texas Supreme Court held that the suit could move forward. (See prior posting.) Now, in Public Statement PS-2024-1, (Sept. 9, 2024), the Commission on Judicial Conduct has withdrawn the prior Public Warning "in light of the decision handed down by the Texas Supreme Court and the underlying facts and evidence...." However, according to a report yesterday by KWTX News, Hensley will continue her lawsuit. Quoting her attorneys, First Liberty Institute:

Unfortunately, Judge Hensley has incurred damages and attorney fees fighting for religious liberty, the Constitution, other judges who feared coming forward and her own reputation. We intend to complete the mission. Other judges who feared retaliation from the Commission and hid in the shadows may now be able to step forward and file their own cases seeking damages up to $10,000, plus costs and fees.

Texas Sues HHS Over Rule Protecting Privacy of Information About Out-of-State Abortions

Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenging two HHS privacy rules that limit entities covered by HIPPA from disclosing certain health care information about patients to state law enforcement officials. The rule adopted earlier this year (see prior posting) specifically prohibits disclosure of information to enforcement officials in a woman's home state for their use in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding investigating reproductive health care (including abortions) provided in another state where the health care was lawful in the state where it was provided. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 9/4/2024), alleges in part that HIPAA explicitly preserves state investigative authority and does not give HHS authority to promulgate rules limiting has HIPPA regulated entities may share information with state governments. The Texas Attorney General's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.  AP reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Factual Issues Remain in Chaplain's Suit Over Ouster for Anti-Trans Blog Post

 In Fox v. City of Austin, (WD TX, Sept. 4, 2024), a Texas federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on several claims in a suit brought by a volunteer chaplain for the Austin, Texas fire department.  Plaintiff was fired because of his blog posts saying that God created each person as male or female, that sex is immutable and that it is unfair to allow males to compete in women's sports. Applying the balancing test in the Supreme Court's Pickering decision, the court concluded that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the extent of the disruption that the blog posts caused within the Fire Department.  Thus, the court refused to grant summary judgment on plaintiff's free speech retaliation claim, his free exercise claim and his claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court did dismiss plaintiff's claim that his free speech rights were violated when the Department requested that plaintiff write an apology note and it found that the fire chief had qualified immunity in the claim against him for damages.

5th Circuit Reopens Lipan-Apache's Suit Objecting to Park Modifications

 In 2021, Texas voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that provides:

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief.

The amendment was a response to orders during the Covid pandemic that limited the size of gatherings for religious services. (Background.)

In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., Aug. 28, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether this ban is an absolute one, or whether the amendment merely imposes a strict scrutiny requirement on any limitation. The issue arises in a suit by members of the Lipam-Apache Native American Church who claim that improvements to a park that include tree removal and rookery management destroy their ability to use a sacred site in the park for certain religious ceremonies. In a prior decision, the 5th Circuit rejected plaintiffs' claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It then held that plaintiffs had not adequately briefed the question of whether the Religious Services Amendment to the constitution covers a compelled preservation of spiritual ecology. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for a rehearing, and in this week's decision the panel withdrew its original opinion and certified the question of the meaning of the Religious Services Amendment to the Texas Supreme Court, saying in part:

Neither party has cited any cases interpreting this constitutional provision, nor has this court found any. This potentially outcome determinative issue raises novel and sensitive questions....

Court Enjoins Enforcement Against Texas of DOE Guidance Documents on Transgender Students

In State of Texas v. Cardona, (ND TX, Aug. 5, 2024), a Texas federal district court in a 113-page opinion enjoined enforcement against Texas schools of a Notice of Interpretation, a Dear Educator Letter and a Fact Sheet ("Guidance Documents") issued by the U.S. Department of Education that interpreted Title IX's ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  The court said in part:

The Guidance Documents' interpretation of "sex" and the accompanying requirement that schools treat "gender identity" the same as biological sex flouts Title IX. The Department lacks the authority to "rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate," particularly in a way that undercuts a statute's purpose.... Yet this is exactly what the Guidance Documents do. By interpreting the term "sex" in Title IX to embrace "gender identity" as distinct from biological sex, the Guidance Documents are contrary to law and exceed the Department's statutory authority....

The Guidance Documents' expanded definition of "sex" are contrary to law due to violating another rule of interpretation. That is, Congress must "speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance.'"... Known as the Major Questions Doctrine, it promotes the principle of statutory interpretation that courts should not assume Congress delegated questions of "deep 'economic and political significance'" unless done expressly....

Despite the Department's lack of authority, Defendants nonetheless maintain that Bostock supports the expanded definition of "sex." But this argument falls flat. Bostock stated without equivocation that its holding only applies to Title VII....

The Guidance Documents are substantively and procedurally unlawful in violation of the APA. They are substantively unlawful because the Department's purported interpretations of Title IX squarely conflict with the statute.... Additionally, the Guidance Documents are procedurally unlawful because they impose new substantive obligations on states and other regulated entities without adhering to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements—which were designed to ensure public participation....

Court Rejects Texas AG's Challenge To Catholic Agency Assisting Migrants

 As previously reported, a legal battle has been underway between Annunciation House, a Catholic agency serving migrants and refugees in El Paso, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who accuses the agency of sheltering migrants who have entered the country illegally. This week the Attorney General failed in his efforts to close down Annunciation House.  In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (I), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), a Texas state trial court held that Texas statutes which bar harboring migrants to induce them to stay illegally in the U.S. are pre-empted by federal law and cannot be used as the basis for a quo warranto action to revoke the agency's registration to operate in Texas. The court said in part:

The State’s proposed counterclaim in the nature of quo warranto violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act by substantially burdening Annunciation House’s free exercise of religion and failing to use the “least restrictive means” of securing compliance with the law.

In Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton (II), (TX Dist. Ct., July 1, 2024), the court dismissed the Attorney General's suit against Annunciation House, saying in part:

The record before this Court makes clear that the Texas Attorney General’s use of the request to examine documents from Annunciation House was a pretext to justify its harassment of Annunciation House employees and the persons seeking refuge.

El Paso Times reports on the case.

Justice of the Peace's Challenge to Reprimand for Refusing Same-Sex Marriage Officiation Is Remanded

 In Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., June 28, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that a Justice of the Peace may move ahead with her suit brought against members of the Judicial Conduct Commission who issued a formal warning to the Justice of the Peace because of her refusal to perform same-sex marriages. The Justice of the Peace would perform marriages for heterosexual couples, but referred same-sex couples to others that would perform a ceremony for them. She contended that the Commissioners' actions violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as her free speech rights. The court held that there was no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, nor was the suit against individual commissioners (as opposed to the Commission itself) barred by sovereign immunity.

Justice Blacklock, joined by Justice Devine, filed a concurring opinion, agreeing that as a procedural matter the case can move forward, but said that the Supreme Court should have reached the substantive claims and dismissed them.  He said in part:

There are no victims. There was no crime. We have a Christian justice of the peace in a small Texas city doing her best to navigate her duties to God and to the public. We have no real people even claiming to be harmed by her actions. We certainly have no same-sex couples denied a marriage—or anything even close to that. There is no good reason for this case to exist.

But it does exist. It exists because of the Judicial Conduct Commission, which veered far outside its proper lane by self-initiating this victimless but politically and emotionally charged case. The Commission misinterpreted the Code of Judicial Conduct and violated Judge Hensley’s religious-freedom rights by publicly sanctioning her and by continuing to hold over her head the threat of a future, harsher sanction should she resume her marriage-referral policy. To her credit, Judge Hensley did not capitulate. And for the last several years, the Commission has doubled down again and again on this misbegotten case, all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.

Justice Young filed a brief concurring opinion. Justice Lehrmann filed a dissenting opinion contending that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Expansion of Medical Exceptions to Abortion Ban

 In State of Texas v. Zurawski, (TX Sup. Ct., May 31, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court vacated a temporary injunction entered by a state trial court which had broadened the medical exception to Texas' abortion ban. The trial court had relied on the Due Course of Law and Equal Protection clauses of the Texas Constitution. The Supreme Court said in part:

Under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. As our Court recently held, the law does not require that a woman’s death be imminent or that she first suffer physical impairment. Rather, Texas law permits a physician to address the risk that a life-threatening condition poses before a woman suffers the consequences of that risk. A physician who tells a patient, “Your life is threatened by a complication that has arisen during your pregnancy, and you may die, or there is a serious risk you will suffer substantial physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” and in the same breath states “but the law won’t allow me to provide an abortion in these circumstances” is simply wrong in that legal assessment. 

Given this construction, we conclude that Dr. Karsan has not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows.

Justice Lehrmann filed a concurring opinion. Justice Busby also filed a concurring opinion which Justice Lehrmann joined.

CBS News reported on the decision.

Texas School Sues Over New Title IX Rules on Sex Discrimination

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the Biden administration's new rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  The complaint (full text) in Carroll Independent School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (ND TX, filed 5/21/2024), alleges in part:

7.... This bureaucratic fiat prevents Carroll ISD from protecting private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers for both girls and boys, opens girls’ sports to males, and infringes on the constitutional rights of students and staff.  

8. The administrative rewrite achieves the exact opposite of Title IX’s goal to promote equal opportunity for women. For fifty years, “sex” has meant the biological binary—differences between male and female. Respecting these biological differences is essential to achieving that goal—and Title IX recognizes as much. But now the Biden administration’s regulations will require schools to ignore sex to promote a person’s subjective “sense” of their gender.  

9. Schools must do so even though it deprives their female students of the equal opportunities in education that Title IX promised.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Feds Sue Texas Correctional Authorities for Failing to Accommodate Employee's Religious Head Covering

The Justice Department today filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice alleging that it violated Title VII by failing to accommodate a clerical employee's religious practice of wearing a head covering pursuant to her Ifa faith. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, (SD TX, filed 5/3/2024), alleges in part:

34. Though Spears identified her belief in the Ifa faith and her religious practice of wearing a head covering, TDCJ was not satisfied that her religious beliefs were sincere or should be accommodated. 

35. Instead, when Spears turned in her accommodation form, Fisk informed her that TDCJ would further research her religion and its practices. Spears questioned whether it was a normal practice to research religions. Specifically, she asked whether research would be done for more mainstream religions. Fisk indicated that it was not TDCJ’s normal practice.

 36. On October 15, 2019, Fisk conducted an internet search of the Ifa religion and practices and faxed the search results along with Spears’s accommodation request to Terry Bailey for her consideration. 

37. Then, on October 16, 2019, TDCJ further questioned the sincerity of Spears’s faith when Bailey mailed a letter demanding documentation or a statement from a religious institution pointing to the specific Ifa belief or doctrine that supported the necessity of Spears’s head covering. The letter also stated that TDCJ would not take any further action to review Spears’s accommodation request until the additional information was submitted.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Remands Muslim Inmate's RLUIPA and Establishment Clause Claims

 In Lozano v. Collier, (5th Cir., April 11, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a portion of the district court's decision and vacated another portion of it in a challenge by a Muslim inmate to practices that allegedly burdened plaintiff's ability to exercise his religion. The court said in part:

In his first RLUIPA claim, Lozano alleges that the [Texas Department of Criminal Justice] Defendants burdened his religious exercise by denying him the opportunity to shower privately with other Muslim inmates for Jumah.  He alleges that the shower conditions—which include inmates who are “naked, cussing, speaking idol talk” and inmates who are “homosexuals and predators”—make it impossible for him to meet his “holy obligation for cleanliness in prayer for Jumah”...   

Lozano’s second RLUIPA claim, alleges that the TDCJ defendants burdened his religious liberty by denying him a private cell to pray..... Lozano alleges... that other inmates in his cell intruded into his prayer space and tried to provoke him to fight them during his attempts to pray....

Lozano’s third RLUIPA claim involves an alleged lack of access to religious programming and instruction, namely, Taleem and Quranic studies. ...

In his § 1983 claim, Lozano contends that the existence of Jewish- and Native-American-designated units, and the absence of a Muslim-designated unit, constitutes a neutrality problem and violates the Establishment Clause.  

Lozano also alleges that the TDCJ’s faith-based dormitories have a curriculum that requires inmates to attend Christian-based classes, despite the faith-based dorms being nominally open to inmates of all religions. ...

... [W]e reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment on Lozano’s RLUIPA claims... and vacate and remand for further consideration....

The district court held that Lozano failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on whether the absence of a Muslim-designated unit or dorm violates the Establishment Clause.... We vacate and remand this claim to the district court to reconsider, in a manner consistent with applicable precedent and this opinion....

5th Circuit Denies Further Relief to Native American Church Objecting to Park Modifications

As previously reported, last year a Texas federal district court held that members of the Lipam-Apache Native American Church should be given access for religious services to a point on the San Antonio River which is a Sacred Site for them.  The court refused to grant plaintiffs' request that the proposed improvements to the park in which the Sacred Site is located be limited so that the spiritual ecology of the Sacred Area would be preserved by minimizing tree removal and allowing cormorants to nest. Plaintiffs appealed the injunction denials.  In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., April 11, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. Rejecting appellants' claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court said in part:

In analyzing Appellants’ contention that the destruction of the tree canopies, where cormorants nest, and the driving away of the cormorants themselves will burden their religions, we consider whether the presupposed burden is real and significant....

Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. Appellants’ reverence of the cormorants as sacred genesis creatures from the Sacred Area is not implicated here because the City’s rookery management program does not directly dictate or regulate the cormorants’ nesting habits, migration, or Park visitation. For example, the record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year. Moreover, the City’s rookery management program does not substantially burden Appellants’ religious beliefs because cormorants can still nest elsewhere in the 343-acre Park or nearby. The deterrent activities are deployed only within the two-acre Project Area and only to persuade the birds to nest elsewhere....

The record indicates that various areas of the Park “become nearly unusable for 10 months of the year due to the bird density/habitat.”...

 [T]he City’s tree removal plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the City’s compelling governmental interest of making the Project Area safe for visitors to the Park....

Appellants assert that the City’s plan violates the religious-service protections provision of the Texas Constitution....

Even accepting that the “relatively new provision bars any government action that prohibits or limits religious services,” Appellants do not sufficiently brief the question of whether a compelled “preservation of spiritual ecology” was envisioned in the statute’s definition of a “religious service” protected from state sanctioned prohibitions or limitations.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, contending that the city should have done more to accommodate plaintiffs as to tree removal and anti-nesting matters.

Texas' Claim Against HHS Over Pharmacy Guidance Dismissed As Moot

In State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (WD TX, April 5, 2024), a Texas federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to an HHS Guidance Document for pharmacies. Initially, HHS issued Guidance reminding retail pharmacies of their non-discrimination obligations. The state of Texas and a pharmacy sued contending that the Guidance required Texas pharmacies to dispense abortion-inducing drugs in violation of Texas law and in violation of religious beliefs of plaintiff pharmacy. HHS denied this and moved for dismissal of the complaint. The court disagreed. The court now describes that decision by saying in part:

So based on the suspicion that Defendants were “smurfing” the administration’s policy goal contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Dobbs, the Court shot down Defendants’ motion. [See prior posting.]

Three months after the court refused to dismiss the suit, HHS issued a revised Guidance which explicitly provided that the Guidance does not require pharmacies to fill prescriptions for the purpose of abortions. The court went on:

[D]espite the textual changes, which appear crafted specifically to capitulate to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs remain unpersuaded....

Plainly put, Plaintiffs’ concern is that anyone—pregnant or not—can walk into a pharmacy with a prescription for methotrexate, which the pharmacy must fill under every circumstance because the prescription was lawfully prescribed for a non-abortion purpose like rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not an unreasonable concern....

From the Court’s perspective, it’s hard to account for the Revised Guidance’s plain text, Defendants’ reasons for issuing the Revised Guidance, and Defendants’ in-person statements, but then still conclude that Plaintiffs will be forced to dispense drugs for abortion purposes. Indeed, it seems the only way the Court could even “reasonably expect” that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury would occur at this point would be for the Court to disregard all of Defendants’ actions as deceptive litigation posturing.  

To be sure, that argument appeals to the Court’s healthy distrust for the fourth branch of government. But there is no evidence that Defendants have tried to enforce these “obligations” against Mayo or any pharmacy in Texas in the almost two years since the  Pharmacy Guidance was issued. ...

Plaintiffs have received everything they asked for; they should take the win. As a result, the issues are now moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction.

ADF issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Texas Man Sentenced To 37 Years in Muslim Hate Crime Murder

A Department of Justice press release reports that yesterday a Texas federal district court sentenced a defendant to 37 years in prison (with credit for time served before sentencing) for a mass shooting at a Dallas car repair business. Thirty-nine year old Anthony Paz Torres had pleaded guilty to five federal hate crime counts. DOJ explains:

 According to court documents, Torres admitted that a few days prior to the shooting, he went to Omar’s Wheels and Tires, made anti-Muslim comments, and pledged that he would come back. When he returned to the business on Dec. 24, 2015, Torres asked customers if they were Muslim. After being escorted back to his vehicle by Omar’s Wheels and Tires employees, Torres discharged his firearm in the direction of multiple employees and customers. Torres admitted that he killed one person and attempted to kill four other people at Omar’s Wheels and Tires because he believed that they were Muslim. 

Appeals Court Upholds Preliminary Injunctions Against Texas Treating Gender-Affirming Care as Child Abuse

In Abbott v. Doe, (TX App., March 29, 2024), a Texas state appellate court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction against the state's Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner. The preliminary injunction barred these defendants from taking investigative or enforcement action based on the state Attorney General's Opinion, the Governor's letter and Statement by the Department implementing it that deemed many of the procedures used to treat gender dysphoria to be child abuse. (See prior posting.) The court, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in entering the injunction, said in part:

The injuries Appellees allege, and that the injunction redresses, are that the application or threatened application of the allegedly invalid rule announced in the Department Statement interferes with or impairs the Doe Parents’ right to make imminent decisions about their child’s medical care, Mary’s guarantee of equal rights and equality under law, and Appellees’ rights to due process because the rule is unconstitutionally vague.  See Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 3a, 19....

The temporary injunction specifically precludes the Department from taking action against Appellees based on the rule announced in the Department Statement, which references the Governor’s Directive and the Attorney General’s opinion....  The temporary injunction remedies Appellees’ injuries because it temporarily reinstates Department policies and procedures for screening reports and conducting investigations as they existed prior to February 22, 2022....  At that time, the Department would have applied the same policies and standards to a report concerning gender-affirming medical care as to any other case of suspected child abuse....  Before February 22, 2022, the Department had no rule that categorically deemed the provision of gender-affirming medical care presumptively abusive or required investigation and a disposition for every report of gender-affirming medical care without regard to medical necessity....

In Muth v. Voe, (TX App, March 29, 2024), a second case upholding two temporary injunctions issued by a different state trial court, the appellate court said in part:

We hold that at a minimum the Families have established a probable right to relief on their claim that the Department Statement is an invalid rule because it is a rule within the meaning of the APA and it was adopted without following proper rulemaking procedures.  This claim is sufficient to support the trial court’s temporary injunctions.

Reuters reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Texas Statute Giving Parents Right to Consent to Teens' Contraceptives Is Consistent with Title X

 In Deanda v. Becerra, (5th Cir., March 12, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas statute giving parents the right to consent to their teenagers' receiving contraceptives is consistent with Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act under which clinics are given grants to distribute contraceptives and other family planning services. HHS had given informal guidance to grantees that they could not require parental consent or notify parents before prescribing contraceptives to minors. The court's opinion describes the lawsuit:

In 2020, Alexander Deanda filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Secretary’s administration of the Title X program. He alleged that he is the father of three minor daughters1; that he is raising his daughters according to his Christian beliefs to abstain from pre-marital sex; and that he wants to be informed if any of his children access or try to access contraceptives. He further alleged that Texas law gives him a right to consent before his children obtain contraceptives. See Tex. Fam. Code § 151.001(a)(6); § 102.003(a)(1). Finally, he alleged that the Secretary administers Title X unlawfully by funding grantees who provide contraceptives to minors without notifying parents or obtaining parental consent. Accordingly, Deanda sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a putative class, claiming that the Title X program violates (and does not preempt) Texas law and that it violates his constitutional right to direct his children’s upbringing as well as his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).

The court concluded that Title X and the Texas statute reinforce each other because Title X calls for grantees to encourage family participation to the extent practicable.  The court however reversed the trial court's invalidation of a formal HHS Rule promulgated in 2021 forbidding grantees from notifying parents or requiring parental consent because the Rule was adopted after this lawsuit was filed and was not specifically challenged by the lawsuit. 

Houston Chronicle reports on the decision.

LGBTQ+ Support Group Fights Texas AG's Demand for Information

Suit was filed this week in a Texas state trial court by PFLAG, a national support group for LGBTQ+ individuals and their families, seeking to set aside civil investigative demands from the Texas Attorney General's Office. PFLAG contends that the demands from the AG's Office indicate that the Attorney General is seeking to identify Texas families that are seeking gender-affirming care for their transgender adolescents. The investigative demands were issued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The petition (full text) in PFLAG, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/28/2024), alleges in part:

The goal of the OAG in serving these Demands is neither to enforce Texas law, nor to protect Texas consumers under the DTPA. These Demands are a clear and unmistakable overreach by the OAG in retaliation for PFLAG successfully standing up for its members, who include Texas transgender youth and their families, against the OAG’s, the Attorney General’s, and the State of Texas’s relentless campaign to persecute Texas trans youth and their loving parents. While that retaliation is itself a reason to set aside the Demands, PFLAG is entitled to a temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunctive relief because the Demands violate PFLAG and its members’ rights to freedom of petition, speech and assembly and to be free from unjustified searches and seizures, are contrary to the OAG’s authority under the DTPA, and impermissibly seek to evade the protections afforded to PFLAG as a civil litigant. 

In 2022, PFLAG successfully obtained temporary injunctive relief shielding its member families from the Texas Department of Family Protective Services’ (“DFPS”) operationalization of Governor Greg Abbott’s directive to investigate families of transgender youth who receive gender-affirming medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria—a directive based on the Attorney General’s non-binding opinion claiming that necessary, evidence-based gender affirming medical treatment for transgender youth is per se “child abuse” under Texas law....  And in 2023, PFLAG successfully obtained a temporary injunction at the district court enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 14 ... which seeks to prohibit the provision and state funding of gender-affirming medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria of transgender adolescents.....

Through the OAG’s own actions, discovery has been stayed in both [cases].... But through these Demands, the OAG seeks to circumvent the normal discovery process along with its attendant protections, and in so doing, seeks to chill the ability of PFLAG and its members to exercise their free speech and associational rights and avail themselves of the courts when their constitutional rights are threatened.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Civil Conspiracy Claims Against Religious Organization Survive 1st Amendment Defenses

In re Gothard, (TX App., Feb. 22, 2024), is a mandamus action that is essentially an appeal of a trial court's refusal to dismiss civil conspiracy claims against Institute in Basic Life Principles and its founder, William Gothard. Plaintiffs claimed that ILBP is a cult that "teachers distorted and heretical Christian doctrines" that led to their sexual abuse by their father and brother. The Texas state appellate court rejected Relators', i.e. defendants', First Amendment defenses, saying in part:

Gothard maintains that religious teachings and the publication thereof are constitutionally protected.  IBLP contends the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars RPIs’ cause of action. It argues that the “alleged religiously motivated conduct of IBLP is the advocacy and publication of religious beliefs.”  According to Relators, if RPIs’ claim is considered valid, any religious leader who speaks on religious topics and publishes his beliefs could be subject to a civil cause of action if a listener or reader improperly applies those beliefs in sexually abusing another person or committing some other unlawful act. ...

But the First Amendment does not bar all claims against religious bodies.,,,  A court may exercise jurisdiction over a controversy if it can apply neutral principles of law that will not require inquiry into religious doctrine, interference with the free-exercise rights of believers, or meddling in church government....

The relevant question is whether it appears certain that resolution of [plaintiffs']’ claims will require the trial court to address purely ecclesiastical questions.... IBLP represents that its teachings and materials are based on scriptures from the Bible, none of which “advocate sexual abuse or any other form of sexual immorality.”  Accordingly, by its own admission, IBLP’s teachings and materials do not advocate sexual abuse and consequently, the intentional tort of sexual assault that underlies the civil conspiracy claim is not rooted in religious belief.  ....

Because sexual assault is not part of Relators’ belief system, we cannot definitively say, based on the record before us, that this is a situation in which religious beliefs are so intertwined with a tort claim so as to unconstitutionally burden Relators’ rights and embroil the court in an assessment of those religious beliefs.