Injunction Against Texas Anti-BDS Law Vacated on Procedural Grounds

I'm on the run, but I thought I'd note it; it's A & R Engineering & Testing, Inc. v. Paxton.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

The Palestinian plaintiff sued Houston and the Attorney General of Texas when the anti-BDS law cost him a city contract. He won the case against the city. He was not entitled to an injunction against the Attorney General who appears to be an innocent bystander in this dispute. If the Attorney General does take action in the future the plaintiff can return to court with a justiciable case or controversy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK -- who won?

The BDS folks or the Israel folks?

[John F. Carr]

The BDS folks won, or more specifically one of them won.

[bratschewurst]

How is it possible that 303 Creative had standing and this guy didn’t?

[John F. Carr]

This guy did have standing and he got all the relief he needed. He did not need to get the Attorney General involved.

Procedurally there may have been a requirement to notify the Attorney General. If I sue in my state's courts and want a statute declared unconstitutional I must notify the Attorney General so she can defend it.

[Jett's Pop]

How can they discuss standing and not discuss whether the City of Houston could remedy the injury? Which it obviously could, and did, by offering Plaintiff a contract without the offending clause (pursuant to the district court's injunction).

[ReaderY]

The reason why, and the plaintiffs mistake, is that the plaintiff never sued the City of Houston. He only sued the Attorney General. If he had sued the City, the outcome would be different.

[Reallynotbob]

Remind me again why private actors' decisions about with whom they do business is within the Texas legislature's remit?

[Ak Mike]

The Texas legislature gets to specify who the Texas government does business with. The law in Texas requires that government contracts with "private actors" include provisions that the private actor not discriminate against various protected classes. Does that seem wrong to you?

[wolfefan]

I haven't reviewed the law in question and as IANAL I probably wouldn't understand the nuances if I did. My understanding, though, of the BDS movement is that it's directed at the nation of Israel. Without regard to the merits of the movement, is a foreign nation considered a protected class?

[ReaderY]

Yes. Protected classes are what the law says are protected classes. Texas law says Israel is a protected class.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts once had a similar law -- anyone who contracted with the Commonwealth had to affirm that no division of their corporation was doing business with the British in Northern Ireland.

I came across it 20 years ago, before the peace settlement, and it appears to have disappeared now, but it was one of the things you had to sign if you wanted to do business with the Commonwealth.

And if that was legal, why wasn't this -- Massachusetts didn't want its money going to companies that supported the British and Texas doesn't want its money going to companies that oppose Israel. I don't see a difference here...

[John F. Carr]

While Congress is supposed to have no jurisdiction over anything except what is granted, state legislatures have jurisdiction over everything except what is taken away.

[CJColucci]

On the run? From whom? What did you do?

[Andrew Dhuey]

Eugene is on the run? Oh well, I guess the Conspiracy finally got busted. Fun while it lasted.

[Social Justice is neither]

So apparently discrimination against protected classes is back on the menu if you score high enough on the left's victim scorecard.

[ReaderY]

It appears the plaintiff’s lawyer made a blunder. According to the 5th Circuit opinion, the plaintiff needed to sue the City of Houston, not the Texas Attorney General, on grounds the City made an independent decision to incorporate the statutory provision into its contracts that the Attorney General wasn’t responsible for. To cover the necessary bases, his lawyer should have sued both.

[John F. Carr]

The plaintiff did sue Houston. Houston did not appeal and was not a party in the Court of Appeals.