Texas v. Travis Cnty., CAUSE NO.: A–17–CA–00425–SS

272 F.Supp.3d 973

TEXAS and Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General, Plaintiffs,

v.TRAVIS COUNTY et al., Defendants.

CAUSE NO.: A–17–CA–00425–SS

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.

Signed August 9, 2017

Brantley Starr, David Jonathan Hacker, David Austin Robert Nimocks, Joel Stonedale, Michael Christopher Toth, Andrew Drake Leonie, III, Office of the Attorney General, Darren L. McCarty, Office of the Attorney General, General Executive Administration, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Anthony J. Nelson, Laurie R. Eiserloh, Sharon Talley, Tim Labadie, Sherine Elizabeth Thomas, Assistant County Attorney, Travis County Attorney's Office, Christopher J. Coppola, Michael John Weills Siegel, City of Austin, Law Department, Max Renea Hicks, Law Office of Max Renea Hicks, Mimi M.D. Marziani, Texas Civil Rights Project, Max Renea Hicks, Law Office of Max Renea Hicks, Austin, TX, Cassandra Lang Champion, Texas Civil Rights Project, Odessa, TX, Efren Carlos Olivares, Texas Civil Rights Project, Alamo, TX, Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera & Associates, P.C., Jose Garza, Law Office of Jose Garza, Michael Patrick Moran, Garza Golando Moran, PLLC, Nina Perales, Celina Ysela Moreno, MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund], Marisa Bono, San Antonio, TX, Trisha Trigilio, ACLU of Texas, Houston, TX, David W. Dummer, Yolanda Cornejo Garcia Sidley Austin, LLP, Dallas, TX, Jose F. Sanchez, Sidley Austin, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER

SAM SPARKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BE IT REMEMBERED on the 29th day of June 2017, the Court held a hearing in the above-styled cause, and the parties appeared by and through counsel. Before the Court are Defendant Travis County's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [# 26], Plaintiffs State of Texas and Ken Paxton (collectively, the State)'s Response [# 30] in opposition, and Travis County's Reply [# 33] in support; Defendant the City of Austin's Amended Motion to Dismiss [# 27], the State's Response [# 30] in opposition, and City of Austin's Reply [# 36] in support; Defendant Texas Organizing Project Education Fund's Motion to Dismiss [# 62], the State's Response [# 71] in opposition, and Texas Organizing Project Education Fund's Reply [# 72] in support; Defendant El Paso County's Motion to Dismiss [# 64] and the State's Response [# 71] in opposition; Defendant the City of El Cenizo's Amended Motion to Dismiss [# 65] and the State's Response [# 71] in opposition; as well as the State's Motions to Consolidate Cases [## 17, 24, 35], Defendants' Response [## 21, 22, 39, 40, 48] in opposition, and the State's Reply [# 52] in support.¹ Having reviewed the documents, the governing law, the arguments of the parties at the hearing, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.

Background

The State filed this action seeking a declaration Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) is constitutional. On May 7, 2017, Governor Abbott signed SB 4 into law. SB 4 prohibits municipalities and their employees and officials from adopting, enforcing, or endorsing any policy that would "materially limit" local police or other officials from enforcing "immigration laws." Am. Compl. [# 1] Ex. 1 (SB 4) at 48–49. Specifically, the law requires local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities; prohibits these agencies from maintaining policies barring officers from inquiring into an individual's immigration status; requires these agencies to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers; and in some cases, requires these agencies to transfer an individual from a Texas correctional facility to federal authorities. Id. The State explains it enacted SB 4 "to prevent localities from forming a patchwork of inconsistent policies of federal cooperation across Texas." State's Resp. [# 71] at 7. "By ending local policies that block the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law, SB 4 aims to ensure that suspected and convicted criminals are not released back onto the streets and that the respect for the rule of law continues to preserve the safety of citizens throughout the State." Id.

Though SB 4 was signed into law on May 7, 2017, the law does not go into effect until September 1, 2017. SB 4 at 59, 60.

I. Austin Proceedings

This lawsuit (the Austin case) was filed on May 7, 2017, just hours SB 4 was signed. In its complaint, the State seeks only declaratory relief that SB 4 is constitutional under both the federal and state constitutions. Compl. [# 1]; Am. Compl. [# 23] ¶¶ 322–329 (adding claim that SB 4 does not violate the Texas Constitution). The State argues it was justified in bringing this action because, "[l]eading up to the passage of SB 4, numerous local officials vowed legal fights over the legislation, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the State to regulate their varying local policies of noncooperation." State's Resp. [# 30] at 2. According to the State, the fact that Defendants' policies remain in place today, together with the fact that Defendants have challenged the constitutionality of SB 4 in the San Antonio case, reveal Defendants "intent to violate SB 4 once it takes effect[.]" Id. at 7.

The State's original complaint named as defendants Travis County, Austin, officials from Travis County and Austin,² and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).³ On May 31, 2017, the State amended its complaint to add as defendants El Paso County, Texas and the Sheriff of El Paso County in his official capacity (together, El Paso); the City of El Cenizo, Texas, the Mayor of El Cenizo, Texas, Maverick County, Texas, the Sheriff of Maverick County, and Constable Pct. 3–1 of Maverick County (together, El Cenizo); the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund (TOPEF); and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

II. San Antonio Proceedings

Following SB 4's passage and the State's near contemporaneous filing of the Austin case, three cases were filed in the San Antonio Division challenging the constitutionality of SB 4. In the first case filed in San Antonio on May 8, 2017, El Cenizo, together with other plaintiffs, filed an action against the State, seeking a declaration that SB 4 is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing SB 4. See City of El Cenizo v. Texas , No. 5:7–CV–404–OLG, 2017 WL 1950681 (W.D. Te x. May 8, 2017). On June 6, 2017, Judge Garcia consolidated the El Cenizo case with two other cases pending in that division after finding these cases involved the same issues of law and most of the named defendants are the same (collectively, the San Antonio case). See id .; El Paso Cty. v. Texas , No. No. 5:17–CV–459–OLG, 2017 WL 2240170 (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2017) ; City of San Antonio v. Texas , No. 5:17–CV–489–OLG (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2017). Judge Garcia subsequently permitted several parties to intervene, including the cities of Dallas, Houston, and Austin and Travis County. The plaintiffs in the now-consolidated San Antonio case filed applications for a preliminary injunction. On June 26, 2017, Judge Garcia held a preliminary injunction hearing where the parties submitted evidence and presented arguments as to SB 4's constitutionality.

Meanwhile, Defendants in the Austin case—many of whom are the plaintiffs in the San Antonio case—filed motions to dismiss the State's claims, arguing, among other things, the State has not alleged an injury sufficient to confer standing and the State seeks an impermissible advisory opinion. In response to these motions, the State contends its action is proper under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as the State has standing to assert these claims and the matter is ripe for judicial determination. The State also filed three motions to consolidate this case with the San Antonio case, arguing these cases involve the same legal issues and the first-to-file rule counsels in favor of consolidating the cases in the Austin Division.

These motions have been fully briefed by the parties and are now ripe for consideration.

Analysis

I. Legal Standard

A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) asks a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss. , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenge a court's "very power to hear the case," and the court may therefore "weigh the evidence and satisfy itself" subject matter jurisdiction exists. MDPhysicians & Assocs., Inc. v. State Bd. of Ins. , 957 F.2d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This case was brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, which provides, "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States ... may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The Supreme Court has held that "the phrase ‘case of actual controversy’ in the Act refers to the type of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ that are justiciable under Article III." MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , 549 U.S. 118, 127, 127 (S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 2007). For the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this case, then, it must meet the "cases and controversies" requirement set forth under Article III of the Constitution. U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty , 445 U.S. 388, 395, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980).

To meet the standing requirement under Article III, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must show (1) she has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or...