Carlos Moore v. Dewey Bryant
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5637
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff, an African-American Mississippi lawyer, sued the Governor alleging the Mississippi state flag (which contains the Confederate battle flag) violates his Equal Protection rights.
- The district court ordered briefing on standing and the political question doctrine; defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration and the parties agreed his testimony would be accepted as true for the motion to dismiss; Plaintiff sought to amend to add a claim on behalf of his daughter.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing and denied leave to amend as futile; the plaintiff appealed.
- On de novo review the Fifth Circuit limited its review to undisputed facts and whether the district court correctly applied standing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff alleged an injury in fact from exposure to the state flag (stigmatic injury) | The flag’s message stigmatizes him, causing emotional and physical harm and making him feel like a second-class citizen | Stigma alone, without personal denial of equal treatment, is not a cognizable injury in an Equal Protection case | Dismissed — stigma alone is insufficient; plaintiff failed to allege discriminatory treatment required by Allen |
| Whether analogous Establishment Clause and hostile-work-environment doctrines confer standing here | Plaintiff: unavoidable exposure to government speech and workplace exposure create injury like in Establishment Clause or Title VII contexts | Defendant: Equal Protection standing differs; those doctrines do not convert stigmatic injury into Article III injury for Equal Protection claims | Dismissed — Establishment Clause and Title VII analogies inapplicable; standing depends on nature/source of claim |
| Whether plaintiff’s alleged physical injuries or frequent exposure (e.g., in courtrooms) establish standing | Plaintiff: frequent/unavoidable exposure and physical symptoms make the stigma concrete and particularized | Defendant: seriousness or frequency of stigma does not cure the lack of individualized denial of equal treatment | Dismissed — frequency/intensity does not satisfy injury-in-fact for Equal Protection |
| Whether plaintiff has standing on behalf of his daughter based on school statutes requiring instruction about and teaching the state pledge | Plaintiff: statutes will force his daughter to learn/communicate objectionable speech, violating her rights | Defendant: statutes only require teaching history and “proper respect” and teaching the pledge; they do not compel recitation or a particular viewpoint | Dismissed — speculative; statutes do not facially compel constitutional violation, so no concrete injury shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (Equal Protection stigma requires personalized denial of equal treatment for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability framework)
- Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. en banc) (Establishment Clause standing based on direct unwelcome exposure to religious displays)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (government speech doctrine and limitations)
- Northeast Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (equal protection injury is denial of equal treatment via a barrier)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (speculative or generalized grievances do not confer standing)