City of Hearne, Texas v. Milton Johnson, 929 F.3d 298

Milton Johnson circulated an initiative petition in Hearne, Texas seeking a forensic audit; he submitted signature pages to the City clerk in March 2016.
Johnson alleges city attorney Bryan Russ seized signature pages and delayed or withheld delivery to the county elections administrator to prevent the initiative from reaching the ballot.
The city council, before signature certification, sued Johnson in Texas state court on grounds unrelated to signature sufficiency; by end of April 2016 all signatures had been delivered for certification.
Johnson filed a § 1983 third-party complaint against Russ alleging First Amendment (petition) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, class-of-one) violations; Russ removed the case to federal court.
The district court denied Russ’s qualified-immunity summary judgment motion; Russ appealed. The Fifth Circuit sua sponte examined standing and held Johnson lacked Article III standing for both claims, vacating the district court’s decision and dismissing the case.
Judge Dennis dissented, arguing Johnson showed a concrete injury-in-fact from alleged interference with an initiative petition and that dismissal on standing grounds improperly addressed the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for First Amendment petition claim	Russ’s alleged withholding of signature pages interfered with Johnson’s constitutional right to petition and chilled political activity	Any procedural mishandling did not cause a concrete, particularized injury because the council considered the petition and all signatures were eventually submitted	No standing: plaintiff’s claim is a procedural injury not tied to a concrete interest; therefore Article III jurisdiction lacking
Standing for Equal Protection (class-of-one) claim	Russ singled out Johnson by impeding petition processing without rational basis, creating unequal treatment in the petition process	No barrier was erected: the council considered and acted on the petition before certification; Johnson suffered no inability to compete or concrete injury	No standing: alleged conduct did not create a barrier or concrete injury to support an equal protection claim

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulates injury-in-fact and proof required for standing)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (procedural-rights-in-vacuo insufficient for standing)
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (initiative petitions implicate core First Amendment protections)
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection framework)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (procedural injuries must be connected to a concrete interest)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts should not decide merits under guise of jurisdictional dismissal)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (plaintiff bears burden to demonstrate federal jurisdiction)
Bernhard v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 523 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2008) (appellate courts must raise jurisdiction sua sponte)