Buisson Creative Strategies, L.L.C. v. Roberts
2:15-cv-06272
E.D. La.Jun 21, 2017Background
- BCS (a marketing/PR firm) and Gregory Buisson provided campaign consulting for a challenger to Jefferson Parish Councilman Christopher Roberts and produced attack ads; Roberts won reelection.
- Jefferson Parish enacted Ordinance 25045, barring persons/firms who worked on council or parish president campaigns during an "election cycle" from receiving Parish contracts and purporting to terminate existing Parish contracts for such persons.
- Plaintiffs sued Roberts and Jefferson Parish under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Contracts Clause, First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process, and the Bill of Attainder prohibition, and sought injunctive relief and damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6)) and for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Ordinance has not been enforced and has been suspended by the Parish Council.
- The record showed the Parish had not cancelled Plaintiffs’ contracts and had actually awarded new contracts to Plaintiffs during litigation through 2018, and Plaintiffs offered no evidence tying their alleged third‑party contract losses to enforcement of the Ordinance.
- The court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing/ripeness, holding there was no concrete, imminent injury traceable to defendants and thus no Article III case or controversy; Plaintiffs may refile if the Ordinance is enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for First Amendment pre‑enforcement challenge | Ordinance chills speech; as an object of regulation, BCS has standing to seek injunction | Ordinance not enforced; no actual or imminent injury; claims are speculative | No standing/ripeness: no imminent injury or hardship; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Standing for Equal Protection (public contract discrimination) | Ordinance creates discriminatory classification barring equal access to Parish contracts | Ordinance not applied; Plaintiffs continued to receive contracts, so no denial of equal treatment | No standing: no present discriminatory policy and no injury in fact |
| Standing for damages based on lost third‑party contracts | Loss of revenue and contracts with private third parties caused by Ordinance | Losses not traceable to Ordinance; Ordinance only restricts Parish contracts, not third‑party contracts | No standing: alleged third‑party losses are independent actions not fairly traceable to defendants |
| Ripeness / Mootness of pre‑enforcement claims | Immediate adjudication needed to prevent harm and chilling | Lack of present enforcement makes adjudication premature; Greenstein controlling | Claims unripe; court declines to decide constitutionality absent enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2005) (standing and subject‑matter jurisdiction principles)
- Home Builders Ass'n of Miss. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir. 1998) (standing requires case or controversy)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and burden of proof)
- Choice Inc. of Texas v. Greenstein, 691 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2012) (pre‑enforcement challenge held unripe where feared enforcement was speculative)
- Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of Texas, Inc. v. Abbott, 647 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2011) (First Amendment standing principles for facial challenges)
- Northeast Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (injury in fact for equal protection denial of equal treatment)