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.

Texas AG Seeks to Liquidate Catholic Agency Providing Services to Migrants

 A legal battle is 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. On Feb. 7, Paxton demanded that Annunciation House turn over various records within one day. The next day, Annunciation House filed suit in a Texas state trial court seeking a declaratory judgment and temporary restraining order. The complaint (full text- Scroll to Exhibit 6) in Annunciation House, Inc. v. Paxton, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 2/8/2024), in part asks the court to determine:

whether Defendants’ unexplained demand for sensitive information infringes on AHI’s constitutional rights, including religious liberty, association, and equal protection, and the privacy rights of third parties, including their sensitive medical, legal, and personal information.

The same day, the court issued a TRO (full text, scroll to Exhibit 7) temporarily barring the Attorney General's office from enforcing its Request to Examine Annunciation House's records. On Feb. 20, the Attorney General filed a counter claim (full text), seeking, as a sanction for failing to produce the requested documents, to bar Annunciation House from transacting business in Texas and asking for appointment of a receiver to wind up Annunciation House's affairs. In a press release announcing the filling, the Attorney General's office said in part:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Annunciation House, a nongovernmental organization (“NGO”), to revoke their registration to operate in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) reviewed significant public record information strongly suggesting Annunciation House is engaged in legal violations such as facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house....

The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling....

In a Feb. 21 press release, Annunciation House responded, saying in part:

The AG has now made explicit that its real goal is not records but to shut down the organization. It has stated that it considers it a crime for a Catholic organization to provide shelter to refugees.

The Attorney General’s illegal, immoral and anti-faith position to shut down Annunciation House is unfounded. Annunciation House has provided hospitality to hundreds of thousands of refugees for over forty-six years. It is a work recognized by the Catholic Church and is listed in the National Catholic Directory. Annunciation House has done this work of accompaniment out of the scriptural and Gospel mandate to welcome the stranger. Annunciation House’s response to the stranger is no different from that of the schools who enroll children of refugees, the clinics and hospitals who care for the needs of refugees, and the churches, synagogues, and mosques who welcome families to join in worship.

Texas Tribune reports on the litigation.

5th Circuit: EMTALA Does Not Require Emergency Abortions

In State of Texas v. Becerra, (5th Cir., Jan. 2, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court barring enforcement of a Guidance document on emergency abortion care issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. (See prior posting.) The Department of Health and Human Services' Guidance to hospitals (and accompanying Letter) stated that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospital emergency rooms to perform certain abortions, even when they violate Texas law, when an abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition. The 5th Circuit said in part:

While EMTALA directs physicians to stabilize patients once an emergency medical condition has been diagnosed, ..., the practice of medicine is to be governed by the states. HHS' argument that "any" type of treatment should be provided is outside EMTALA's purview....

 ... EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child....

... EMTALA leaves the balancing of stabilization to doctors, who must comply with state law.... We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations....

Texas Tribune reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Trial Court Order That Allowed an Abortion

 In In re State of Texas, (TX Sup. Ct., Dec. 11, 2023), the Texas Supreme Court directed a trial court to vacate a temporary restraining order that it issued on Dec. 7. The trial court's order (see prior posting) allowed plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a fatal chromosomal condition to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court said in part:

In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox’s doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan—believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.... 

A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient....

Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard. Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it.

Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Ms. Cox has left Texas in order to get health care elsewhere. CNN reports on the Texas Supreme Court's decision.

Texas Court Issues TRO Permitting an Abortion; Texas AG Responds

 A Texas state trial court yesterday issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Texas Attorney General and the state Medical Board from enforcing Texas' abortion ban against plaintiff physician and her staff for performing a D&E abortion for plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a chromosomal condition that will result in its death before birth or at most in a few days after birth. The court in Cox v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2023), said in part:

The longer Ms. Cox stays pregnant, the greater the risks to her life. Ms. Cox has already been to three emergency rooms with severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.... If she is forced to carry this pregnancy to term, she will likely need a third C-section ... [which would] make it less likely that Ms. Cox would be able to carry another child in the future.

Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox and that the medical exception to Texas' abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox's circumstances. Dr. Karsan, however, cannot risk liability under Texas's abortion bans and laws for providing Ms. Cox's abortion absent intervention from the Court confirming that doing so will not jeopardize Dr. Karsan's medical license, finances and personal liberty.

Responding to the decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release:

The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions.... and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.... And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens.... Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.

He also sent a letter (full text) to three hospitals-- which were not parties to the case-- warning that they may be liable for negligently credentialing the physician and failing to exercise appropriate medical judgment if they permit the abortion to be performed in their facility.  Austin-American Statesman reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On Dec. 8, the Texas Supreme Court administratively stayed the trial court's order while it considers the case on appeal.

Church Sues Challenging Fee for Water Connection

Suit was filed this week in a Texas state trial court by a church challenging a Houston-area utility district's insistence that the church pay a capital recovery fee of $83,780 rather than the actual cost of $24,900 to connect its new office building and auditorium to the district's water system. The district insists that the added fee "prevents taxpayers from bearing the burden of paying taxes on the bonds issued to construct water, sewer, and drainage facilities that also serve the Church." The complaint (full text) in Grace Community Church- The Woodlands, Inc. v. Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/15/2023), alleges that the fee in excess of the actual cost of the connection amounts to an unlawful tax on a tax-exempt organization.  It also contends that the fee violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment's free exercise clause. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pastor's Breach of Contract Suit Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Craver v. Faith Lutheran Church, (TX App., Nov. 8, 2023), a Texas state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a pastor's suit for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement brought against the church that was his former employer. After the church's executive board received complaints against the pastor, the church entered a severance agreement with the pastor. The pastor contends that the agreement included an assurance that the allegations against him would not be spread throughout the congregation. The court said in part:

Craver argues his case presents a “run-of-the mill” civil dispute, which can be resolved by application of neutral principles of law and without reference to religious matters. He contends: “While Faith Lutheran’s decision to terminate [him] is generally unreviewable, [his] claims have nothing to do with that and are instead about Faith Lutheran’s obligations under a secular, civil contract not to make certain statements.”

We disagree that church matters can be so cleanly and completely severed. Instead, the substance and nature of Craver’s fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims are “inextricably intertwined” with matters of Faith Lutheran’s church governance.... [B]oth claims rely on circumstances surrounding contract formation and it is those circumstances which implicate the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine...

[W]e cannot untwine recommendations Church executives made in the course of church governance from the allegedly fraudulent representations that form the basis of Craver’s lawsuit.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments from JP Sanctioned for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Weddings

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2023). (Briefs filed in the case.) In the case, the state Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging a public warning issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that concluded plaintiff, a justice of the peace, had cast doubt on her ability to act impartially toward LGBTQ litigants. Plaintiff refused to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform weddings for heterosexual couples. She contended that the Commission on Judicial Conduct violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Act. (See prior posting.)  The appeals court held that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's order. Texas Tribune reports on the oral arguments.

Court Gives Limited Relief to Native Americans Who Object to Park Improvements Project

 In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (WD TX, Oct. 11, 2023), a Texas federal district court held that members of the 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.  Access is limited to 15 to 20 people for no more than an hour on astronomical dates that coincide with their spiritual beliefs.  The court deferred ruling on whether access for all-night peyote ceremonies will be allowed. 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. The court said in part:

The most important part of Plaintiffs’ spiritual ecology is the confluence of the shape of the Mother Waters at the bend of the San Antonio River with the shape of the Eridanus constellation of stars.

Given the current extended drought, the lack of water flow from the Blue Hole Springs and other natural sources, there would be no San Antonio River/Mother Waters but for the City artificially assisting the river by pumping recycled waste water, presumably from the sewer reclamation system.... This creates something of a secular/religious symbiotic relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant until it rains, the springs come to life and until the reformation and resurrection of the Project Area is complete. Amen.

... [T]he Court heard credible testimony of thousands of egrets, herons, and cormorants and their excrement nesting in the Project Area during their migrations at different times of the year. Once nested, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act precludes removal. The Court finds the bird deterrent operation is in the realm of public health and safety....

... [T]he Court finds the City has met its burden of proving a compelling government interest for public health and safety....

Moreover, Plaintiffs desire possibly to save trees by ordering the City to “reevaluate the Bond Project to develop alternative plans” would, given the lengthy redesign and re-permitting processes, exponentially extend Plaintiffs’ and the public’s presently fettered ability to enjoy the area. The temporary closing becomes semi-permanent. Instead of months, access would likely remain limited for years, as is the case of the faithful who find the Notre Dame Cathedral to be their sacred place and who for several years will have to use alternative places of worship. By its Order, it is the Court’s intent to make the fettered unfettered as soon as reasonably possible. It will be up to the parties to decide how long they wish to delay the unfettered with continuing litigation.

UPDATE: On Oct. 25, 2023, the Texas federal district court denied plaintiffs' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192796.

 

Texas AG Sues Yelp for $1M for Mislabeling Pregnancy Resource Centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week filed a civil lawsuit against Yelp contending that it violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act by posting a "consumer notice" on the Yelp listings of anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Yelp, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/28/2023), alleges in part:

Yelp has engaged in deceptive trade practices, including disparagement of the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts.... Specifically, Yelp posted a “consumer notice” on the Yelp business pages of every pregnancy resource center across the nation, misleadingly stating that these centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.” That was false. Pregnancy resource centers provide significant care and counseling to pregnant women. And they commonly provide significant medical services, and have licensed medical professionals onsite....

In or around February 2023, after approximately six months of displaying false and misleading disclaimers on the business pages of pregnancy resource centers, Yelp finally removed the misleading disclaimer regarding the alleged lack of medical professionals and medical services onsite, replacing it with a new disclaimer that stated: “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.”

In addition to injunctive relief, the suit asks for civil penalties, attorneys' fees, restitution and costs that total at least $1 million. Paxton's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Care for Minors to Go into Effect

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday in State of Texas v. Loe, (TX Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2023), issued an Order allowing SB 14 to go into effect.  The law prohibits treating minors for gender dysphoria with surgery, puberty blocker or hormones. According to an ACLU press release:

A Travis County District Court had granted a temporary injunction last week that blocked implementation of the ban, but the Texas Attorney General immediately appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, thereby staying the injunction. The Texas Supreme Court did not provide any written explanation for allowing the law to remain in effect.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church's Fraud Claims Against Former Pastor

 In New Bethel Baptist Church v. Taylor, (TX App., Aug. 29, 2023), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims against its former pastor who also served as the general contractor on a church construction project.  Plaintiff claims that the pastor withdrew $300,000 from the church's bank account without authorization. The court concluded that the claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law. the court said in part:

... [T]he resolution of these causes of action does not depend on the interpretation of New Bethel’s bylaws and constitutions or other relevant provisions of governing documents. Indeed, this is an example of a civil law controversy in which a church official happens to be involved....

However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the attorney did not carry her burden of proof that she was authorized to represent the church. The court said in part:

... [R]egardless of how it is named or classified in the underlying suit, it is undisputed that there is only one church. Within this one church, there are two competing factions claiming control, i.e., the board of deacons and directors. With two competing factions claiming control of the church, attorney Robinson, as the challenged attorney, was either authorized to represent both entities, or she was not. In granting Taylor’s rule 12 motion to show authority, the trial court concluded that attorney Robinson failed to discharge her burden of proof to show her authority to act and nothing more.

Trial Court Expands Exemptions in Texas Abortion Law; Appeal Suspends Ruling

In Zurawski v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Aug. 4, 2023), a Texas state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Texas' abortion ban in more situations than the limited exceptions in the statute.  The court restrained enforcement against any physician who provides abortions where the pregnant person has a complication that poses a risk of infection or makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe, has a condition exacerbated by pregnancy that cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy or where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy.

The court said in part:

The Court further finds that any official’s enforcement of Texas’s abortion bans as applied to a pregnant person with an emergent medical condition for whom an abortion would prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility) would be inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people under Article I, §§ 3, 3a, and/or 19 of the Texas Constitution and therefore would be ultra vires.

The state immediately filed a Notice of Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal which apparently has the effect under Texas law of suspending the trial court's temporary injunction pending action by the state Supreme Court. (Attorney General's press release.)  NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Application For Tax Exemption Does Not Violate Organization's Free Exercise Rights

In Children of the Kingdon v. Central Appraisal District of Taylor County, (TX App, Aug. 3, 2023), a Texas state appeals court affirmed a $32,000 property tax assessment against a religious organization that had not filed an application for a tax exemption. Responding to the organization's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

[W]e construe Appellants’ ... argument to be that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects their religious belief to not enter into written agreements with the government; thus, they would not be required to file an application for a property tax exemption in order to not be held liable for the payment of property taxes....

Here, Appellant asserts that the requirement that one must file an application for a property tax exemption violates their rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause, because it is their religious belief to be governed separately from secularism and thus not enter into any agreement or accept any privilege from secular governments. We disagree with Appellants assertion and hold that this requirement does not violate their First Amendment rights. 

First, the exemption application requirement is neutral. It is not specifically directed at or to a religious practice; instead, the requirement is a means of protecting the equality and uniformity of the property tax scheme as guaranteed by the Texas constitution. Second, the requirement is generally applicable....