Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The DWC issued a cease and desist letter to plaintiff arguing that his use of the words "Texas" and "Workers' Comp" in the domain name of his website violated section 419.002 of the Texas Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the statute was unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the regulation at issue was content-neutral and did not amount to a prior restraint. The court reversed the district court's finding that the law was constitutional as applied to plaintiff, and remanded to permit the parties to more fully develop the record on this issue. View "Gibson v. Texas Dept. of Ins., et al" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibited federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21. The court held that plaintiffs had standing; the challenged federal laws passed constitutional muster even if they implicated the Second Amendment guarantee; and under intermediate scrutiny, the challenged laws were constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the ban violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment where plaintiffs failed to show that Congress irrationally imposed age qualifications on commercial arms sales. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the church alleging that the church terminated him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court dismissed the suit based on the ministerial exception, which barred employment-discrimination suits by ministers against their churches, pursuant to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC. Because the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the ministerial exception applied where plaintiff performed an important function during the church service as an accompanist, and therefore barred plaintiff's suit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cannata v. Catholic Diocese of Austin, et al" on Justia Law

An Abbey of the Benedictine Order of the Catholic Church challenged as unconstitutional rules issued by the Louisiana Board of Funeral Directors granting funeral homes an exclusive right to sell caskets. The district court enjoined their enforcement, finding that they denied equal protection and due process of law. After examining the record, the court had doubts about the constitutionality of the State Board's regulation of intrastate casket sales and therefore, certified a question for the Supreme Court of Louisiana. View "St. Joseph Abbey, et al v. Castille, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations licensed to conduct bingo games, filed suit challenging restrictions on the Texas Bingo Enabling Act (Bingo Act), Tex. Occ. Code 2001.001 et seq. Plaintiffs challenged provisions in the Bingo Act that prohibited charities from using the money generated by conducting bingo games for lobbying activities or to support or oppose ballot measures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions. The court reversed and held that the Bingo Act's restrictions on the use of bingo proceeds for political advocacy were permissible conditions on a government subsidy and did not operate to penalize speech. View "Dept of Texas, Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al v. Texas Lottery Commission, et al" on Justia Law

The Church filed suit in federal district court, claiming that a now-repealed city ordinance's church-specific provisions, facially and as applied, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the First Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Mississippi Constitution. The Church simultaneously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the challenged provisions. The court subsequently vacated the district court's order denying the Church's motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the issues on remand included but were not limited to: (1) whether the Church was likely to succeed on its claims challenging the validity of the newly adopted religious facilities ban; (2) whether the harm the Church would suffer absent a preliminary injunction outweighed the harm an injunction would cause the city; (3) the amount of actual damages the Church suffered on account of Sections 10.86 and 10.89 of the city's zoning ordinance, which violated RLUIPA; and (4) at the district court's discretion, whether the Church should be awarded reasonable attorneys fees as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). View "Opulent Life Church, et al v. City of Holly Springs MS, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a grand jury investigation in which the target of the investigation (the witness) was subpoenaed to produce any records of foreign bank accounts he was required to keep under Treasury Department regulations governing offshore banking. The witness informed the government that he would not comply with the subpoena, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the government moved to compel the witness to comply. Because the court concluded that the Required Records Doctrine applied in this case, the court declined the witness's invitation to create a circuit split and accordingly reversed the district court's denial of the government's motion to compel the witness to comply with the subpoena. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, local government officials, sought a declaration that a provision of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 551.001 et seq., violated the First Amendment. Specifically, they contend that Texas Government Code 551.144 was a content-based restriction on political speech, was unconstitutionally vague, and was overbroad. Section 551.144 prohibited members of covered governing bodies from knowingly participating in a closed meeting, to organize a closed meeting, or to close a meeting to the public. The court held that TOMA was content-neutral and was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. TOMA was also a disclosure statute, though that did not change the level of scrutiny, because the statute was content-neutral. Accordingly, the district court properly applied intermediate scrutiny and the court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Alpine, TX, et al v. Abbott, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim against her former employer. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the grievance procedure established in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's claim. Because the CBA did not clearly and unmistakably waive a union member's right to bring a Title VII claim in a federal judicial forum, the district court erred when it concluded that the CBA required plaintiff to submit her Title VII claim to the Article 51 grievance process. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer and remanded for further proceedings.

Planned Parenthood obtained a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of regulations which stated that health care providers participating in a Medicaid-like program must not perform or promote elective abortions. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of these regulations, reasoning that the regulations likely violated Planned Parenthood's rights to free speech and association, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The court held that the district court issued the preliminary injunction based on a wholesale assessment of the regulations' constitutionality, which gave insufficient attention to Texas' authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs. Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the preliminary injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.