• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
REVISED April 27, 2009IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-51587AVINASH RANGRA; ANNA MONCLOVAPlaintiffs-Appellantsv.FRANK D. BROWN, District Attorney; GREGG ABBOTT, Texas AttorneyGeneralDefendants-AppelleesAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of TexasBefore WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.DENNIS, Circuit Judge:Thepivotalquestionpresentedbythisappealiswhetherspeechofelectedstate and local government officials madepursuanttotheirofficialduties, likespeechofnon-electedpublicemployees,isless protected by the First Amendmentthanother speech. The district court held that the First Amendment affordsabsolutelynoprotectiontospeechbyelectedofficialsmadepursuantto theirofficialduties.Wedisagree.TheFirstAmendment’sprotection of electedofficials’speechisfull,robust,andanalogoustothataffordedcitizensingeneral.Furthermore, when a state seeks to restrictthespeech of an elected official on
United States Court of AppealsFifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 24, 2009Charles R. Fulbruge IIIClerk
 
No. 06-51587
1
T
EX
.G
OV
’
T
C
ODE
A
NN
. § 551.001
et seq
. (Vernon 2007).
2thebasisofitscontent,afederalcourtmustapply strict scrutiny and declarethatlimitationinvalidunlessthestatecarriesitsburdentoproveboththattheregulation furthersacompellingstateinterest and that it is narrowly tailoredtoservethatinterest.In the present case, because the district court dismissedtheelectedofficials’challengetoa state statute that regulates theirspeechonthebasisofitscontentwithoutapplyingtherequiredstrictscrutinyanalysis,wereversethe district court’s judgment and remand the case for the performanceof that task.
I.
The plaintiffs,electedcitycouncilmembers, were indicted in state courtfor violations of the criminal provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act(“TOMA”)
1
byactingasaquoruminexchangingprivate emails discussingwhethertocallacouncilmeetingtoconsiderapubliccontractmatter.Afterprosecutingthecharges for several months, the district attorney dismissed themwithoutprejudice.The plaintiffs, alleging fear of future prosecutions and unduerestrictionof their First Amendment speech rights, broughtthis§1983actioninfederaldistrictcourtfordeclaratory and injunctive relief against the stateattorneygeneralandthedistrictattorney,challengingascontent-basedspeechregulationsthecriminal provisions of TOMA. The district courtdismissedtheplaintiffs’ claims, holding that under
Garcetti v. Ceballos
, 547U.S.410 (2006),electedofficials,likepublicemployees,enjoynoFirstAmendmentprotectionoftheirspeechmadepursuanttotheirofficialduties.Theplaintiffsappealedandwenowreverseandremandthecasetothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedings.
 
No. 06-51587
2
TherecordreflectsthatMr.Rangraisstillamemberofthecitycouncil,althoughMs.Monclovamaynotbe.A case is not moot as long as a live controversy exists between at leastoneplaintiffandonedefendant.
SeeCutter v. Wilkinson
, 544 U.S. 709,712n.1(2005);13BC
HARLES
A.W
RIGHT
,A
RTHUR
R.M
ILLER
&E
DWARD
H.C
OOPER
,F
EDERAL
P
RACTICE
&P
ROCEDURE
§3533.1n.18 (3d ed. 2008). Consequently, we need not address standing withrespecttoMs.Monclova.To the extent the issue remains open, we leave its consideration anddetermination to the district court on remand.
3
II
.Defendantsassertthatthiscaseisnonjusticiablebecausethe plaintiffslack standing and their claims are moot. Weagreewith the district court thattheplaintiff Mr. Rangra has standing, and we conclude that the case is notmoot.
2
Toestablishstanding,the plaintiff must demonstrate injury, causation,andredressability.
SeeLujan v.Defendersof Wildlife
,504U.S.555,560(1992).Itiswellestablished that a credible threat of present or future criminalprosecutionwillconfer standing.
See, e.g., Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n,Inc.
,484U.S.383,392-93(1988)(holdingthattheinjury-in-factrequirementwasmet,inpart,because“plaintiffshavealleged an actual and well-foundedfearthatthelawwillbeenforcedagainstthem”);
Steffel v. Thompson
,415U.S.452,459(1974)(“[I]tisnotnecessarythat[aparty]firstexposehimselftoactualarrestorprosecutiontobeentitledtochallengea statute that he claimsdeterstheexerciseofhisconstitutional rights.”);
Doev. Bolton
,410U.S.179,188-89(1973).Thisisbecauseacrediblethreatofpresentorfutureprosecution is aninjurysufficienttoconferstanding,evenifthereisno history of pastenforcement,
see Bolton
, 410 U.S.at188,andaspeakerwhofears prosecutionmayengageinself-censorship,whichisitselfanotherinjury,
see Am.Booksellers
,484U.S.at392(“[T]heallegeddangerof[thechallenged]statuteis,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...