Department of Texas v. Texas Lottery Commission
698 F.3d 239
5th Cir.2012Background
- Charities operate bingo under Texas Bingo Enabling Act, with all proceeds required to be spent for the organization’s charitable purposes.
- The Act prohibits bingo proceeds from being used for political advocacy, including lobbying or supporting/opposing ballot measures.
- Charities sued, asserting First Amendment challenges to § 2001.456(2)–(3); district court granted injunction against enforcement.
- Texas Constitution allowed charitable bingo exception and required all proceeds be used for charitable purposes; Bingo Act implements those provisions.
- The appeal centers on whether the challenged provisions restrict political speech and whether Charities have standing to challenge the provisions.
- The Texas Lottery Commission administers the charitable bingo program, and Eleventh Amendment issues were resolved prior to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Charities have Article III standing to challenge the provisions? | Charities’ injury from restrictions is redressable by injunctive relief. | Charitable purpose requirement forecloses redressability; restrictions are implied by statutory/constitutional limits. | Charities have standing to seek relief. |
| Do the Bingo Act's political-advocacy restrictions penalize speech? | Restrictions burden political speech and fail strict scrutiny under Citizens United. | Restrictions are permissible subsidies, not penalties; government may subsidize some activities and exclude others. | Restrictions are permissible conditions on a government subsidy and do not penalize speech. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (distinguishes subsidy context from outright speech ban)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 498 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1991) (government may require separation of restricted speech in subsidized programs)
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1983) (government may subsidize activity by excluding lobbying without infringing rights)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (facial challenges are difficult; redressability not readily assumed)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1972) (unconstitutional-conditions doctrine—cannot deny benefit for protected speech)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1996) (government may subsidize but not penalize speech)
- American Library Ass’n v. United States, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003) (government subsidies may be conditioned without infringing rights)