Tex. v. Travis Cnty., 17-50763
Decision Date | 12 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17-50763,17-50763 |
Parties | TEXAS; Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ; Sally Hernandez, in Her Official Capacity as Sheriff of Travis County, Texas; City of Austin, Texas; Ora Houston, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Delia Garza, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Sabino Renteria, in His Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Gregorio Casar, in His Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Ann Kitchen, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Jimmy Flannigan, in His Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Leslie Pool, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Ellen Troxclair, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Kathie Tovo, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Alison Alter, in Her Official Capacity as City Council Member of the City of Austin, Texas; Steve Adler, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Austin, Texas; Elaine Hart, in Her Official Capacity as Interim City Manager of the City of Austin, Texas; El Paso County, Texas; Richard Wiles, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas; City of El Cenizo, Texas; Raul L. Reyes, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of El Cenizo, Texas; Maverick County, Texas ; Tom Schmerber, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Maverick County, Texas; Mario A. Hernandez, in His Official Capacity as Constable Precinct 3-1 of Maverick County, Texas; Texas Organizing Project Education Fund; League of United Latin American Citizens, Defendants-Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John Clay Sullivan, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, David J. Hacker, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Environmental Protection Division, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Sherine Elizabeth Thomas, Anthony J. Nelson, Assistant County Attorneys, Laurie R. Eiserloh, County Attorney's Office for the County of Travis, Michael Siegel, Christopher Coppola, Attorney, City of Austin, Law Department, Litigation Division, Renea Hicks, Law Office of Renea Hicks, Mimi Murray Digby Marziani, Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, TX, Jose Garza, Garza Golando Moran, P.L.L.C., Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. & Associates, San Antonio, TX, Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, NY, Spencer Amdur, Cody Wofsy, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, Edgar Saldivar, Andre Segura, Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Efren Carlos Olivares, South Texas Civil Rights Project, Alamo, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
On May 7, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 4 ("SB 4"). SB 4 curbs "sanctuary city" policies by requiring Texas law enforcement agencies to "comply with, honor, and fulfill" federal immigration detainer requests, Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 2.251(a), and barring local entities from "prohibit[ing] or materially limit[ing] the enforcement of immigration laws," Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 752.053(a). SB 4 authorizes, and in some instances requires, Texas’s Attorney General to enforce its provisions through civil and criminal actions. City of El Cenizo, Texas v. Texas , 890 F.3d 164, 175 (5th Cir. 2018). On the flip side, SB 4 requires Texas to defend and indemnify local entities against any "cause of action aris[ing] out of a claim involving the local entity’s good-faith compliance with an immigration detainer request." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 402.0241. SB 4 also provides for a "competitive grant program to provide financial assistance to local entities to offset costs related to ... enforcing immigration laws; or ... complying with, honoring, or fulfilling immigration detainer requests." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 772.0073(b). SB 4 became effective on September 1, 2017.
SB 4’s enactment triggered a flurry of lawsuits. Relevant to this appeal, hours after the bill was approved by Governor Abbott, Texas and its Attorney General Ken Paxton (collectively, "Texas" or "the state") filed suit in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that SB 4 does not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and is not preempted by federal law. Texas named as defendants Travis County and its public officials, the city of Austin and its public officials, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund ("MALDEF"). The state alleged that Travis County and Austin had a "policy and practice of ignoring ICE detainer requests and refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials," and that Austin and MALDEF intended to sue Texas over SB 4’s constitutionality.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Texas lacked Article III standing and was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion. Texas amended its complaint as of right on May 31, adding other local-entity and non-profit defendants as well as claims for declaratory relief based on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and provisions of the Texas Constitution. Defendants renewed their 12(b)(1) challenges.
On August 8, 2017, the district court dismissed Texas’s complaint, finding that Texas lacked Article III standing to seek a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of a statute before the law had become effective. The district court noted that "[t]o hold otherwise would be to ‘open a Pandora’s box and invite every local government to seek a court’s judicial blessing’ on a law prior to it taking effect." Texas timely appealed.1
A district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is subject to de novo review. Ballew v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc. , 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012). We may affirm "on any ground supported by the record, including one not reached by the district court." Id.
Before resolving Article III standing disputes, we must determine whether the district court possessed "jurisdiction conferred by statute." See Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 138 F.3d 144, 150-51 (5th Cir. 1998). Id. at 151 ( )(other citations omitted). On appeal, Texas asserts jurisdiction solely under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal-question jurisdiction statute.
Our analysis of § 1331 begins and ends with Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California , 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).2 California agency Franchise Tax Board filed a state court action against Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, a regulated trust under the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The agency sought a declaration that ERISA did not preempt state law authorizing the agency to issue levies against the trust for delinquent taxes owed by trust beneficiaries. The trust removed to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and the agency appealed, contending that the district court lacked jurisdiction. Id. at 4-7, 103 S.Ct. 2841.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saginaw Cnty. v. Stat Emergency Med. Servs., Inc.
...the federal courts have prohibited the claims under a straightforward application of Franchise Tax Board . See Texas v. Travis County , 910 F.3d 809, 812 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Missouri ex rel. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Cuffley , 112 F.3d 1332, 1334–37 (8th Cir. 1997). But counties and cit......
-
Konan v. United States Postal Serv.
... ... 391 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Texas v. Travis Cnty., ... 910 F.3d 809, 811 (5th Cir. 2018)). Courts “must ... 3:20-CV-1051-B-BT, 2021 WL 811854, at *4 n.3 ... (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021) (noting that “[s]ection 1981 ... claims do not lie ... ...
-
Dubier v. Triangle Capital Props.
... ... subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Texas v ... Travis Cnty., 910 F.3d 809, 811 (5th Cir. 2018) ... (quoting Stockman v ... U.S. Dept. of Justice, 540 ... F.Supp. 898, 900 (S.D. Tex. 1982), aff'd, 696 ... F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 460 ... ...
-
Nguyen v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
...F. Supp. 3d 973, 980 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (citing Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83, 96-97, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) ), aff'd , 910 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2018). Here, however, Plaintiff's claim is plainly not hypothetical. The uncontroverted facts establish that she is insured against flood......