October 28, 2021, SAFA Board Members Lawsuit Against COSA for Religious Discrimination Goes to Texas Supreme Court
SAFA Board Members lawsuit against the City of San Antonio for its religious discrimination of business owner conscience rights and the banning of Chick-fil-A from the public-owned SA International Airport.This lawsuit is very important to religious freedom and conscience rights.
Here’s some evidence via the progressive SA Express News.’Chick-fil-A’ case has strong implications for Texas abortion ban
Taylor Goldenstein, Austin BureauUpdated: Sep. 28, 2021 12:34 p.m.
Pastor Stephen Broden of the Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church in Dallas, Texas leads a prayer to end a press conference for Save Chick-fil-A Day for religious freedom in the central court outdoor rotunda at the Texas State Capitol. [Dimitri Staszewski/San Antonio Express-News]
A case that’s before the Texas Supreme Court this fall could have strong implications for the future of the state’s newly adopted abortion ban, the most prohibitive in the nation.The suit relates to a 2019 law that, like the abortion law, was authored by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola.
Known as the “Save Chick-fil-A” law, it allows anyone to sue when they believe a governmental entity has taken “adverse actions” against a person or company based on its support for a religious organization, as Republican lawmakers believed the city of San Antonio did when excluding the fast-food restaurant from its airport.
Civilian enforcement is also the key to the new state law that effectively bans abortion, Senate Bill 8 — a provision that has so far allowed it to survive a legal challenge based on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case establishing women’s right to abortions. At issue in both cases: Can a state law grant private citizens standing to sue?“
The standing issue in the case is essentially the same,” said Jason Steed, a Dallas-based appellate lawyer and court watcher who is not involved in the case. “That’s what’s interesting about it is that the court could decide that standing issue and whatever they decide about that issue would have direct implications for SB 8.”The plaintiffs’ Chick-fil-A case is being argued by Jonathan Mitchell, former Texas solicitor general — who played a central role in crafting the novel legal approach in SB 8. Mitchell did not respond to a request for comment. The case is set for oral arguments on Oct. 28.
READ ABOUT THE CASE:
San Antonio must offer Chick-fil-A an airport spot as part of agreement with federal officials. Hughes said he worked with Mitchell, a former law clerk to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the “Save Chick-fil-A” bill. They modeled the legislation after the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, which similarly allows private citizens to bring suits alleging fraud and collect a share of any money recovered.“
It was not our intent at the time to set the table for the heartbeat bill, but when we began putting the heartbeat bill together, it did make it easier since we’d already done it in the Chick-fil-A bill,” Hughes said. Hughes and backing the plaintiffs and encouraging the Texas Supreme Court to take up the case.“It’s definitely a case we’re following,” Hughes said.Court could dodge the issueThe city council’s decision to ban the restaurant had animated conservatives who saw it as discrimination against the company because its owner had given money to Christian groups that oppose same-sex marriage.
Gov. Greg Abbott, surrounded by Republican lawmakers, each with a Chick-fil-A styrofoam cup in hand, signed Hughes’ bill in July 2019, and celebrated it as a victory for religious freedom.The suit before the Texas Supreme Court was brought on Sept. 5, 2019, by five Chick-fil-A supporters who said they were harmed because they would have been customers of the restaurant had it opened in the city-owned airport.Still, they note in the suit that the law does not require them to prove damages and purports to give standing to anyone who alleges a violation. They are seeking a court order to stop the city from excluding the fast-foot chain from the this project and potential ones with the city in the future.
It’s unclear whether the company wants into the airport. In September 2020, San Antonio was forced to offer Chick-Fil-A its spot back as part of an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Civil Rights under the Trump administration. The settlement helped the airport avoid penalties that could have jeopardized millions of dollars in funding from the agency.But Chick-Fil-A declined, and the city has since given the spot to Whataburger, which is slated to open by next spring.
POLITICS Chick-fil-A case has strong implications for Texas…
MORE ON THAT: Whataburger gets San Antonio airport space that sparked Chick-fil-A sagaIn August of 2020, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio sided with the city and reversed a lower court’s decision, ruling that the city had sovereign immunity, a legal principle that protects governments and their agencies from lawsuits.
The Chick-fil-A bill, Senate Bill 1978, included a provision waiving that immunity in cases involving alleged violations; however, the law took effect Sept. 1, 2019, and the city council’s decision on the airport contract took place more than six months earlier.The city’s lawyers have also argued that the plaintiffs in the Chick-Fil-A case do not have standing to sue for several reasons, including “failure to show a statutorily-defined injury.”
“The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state court plaintiffs must prove they have the same kind of standing as federal court plaintiffs,” said Neel Lane, an attorney representing the city. “If the court drops that requirement here, it will open up municipalities to lawsuits by people who have not been injured and have no real stake in the outcome. Cities are facing enough strain already.”
But the appellate court did not wade into the standing issue because the immunity issue was enough to toss the case.The Texas Supreme Court could dodge the matter as well, if its nine Republican justices decide to affirm the appellate ruling.“If they don’t want to say that the government has immunity, then they’re going to have to tackle the standing question,” Steed said.