Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Heather Page
809 F.3d 281
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Machete appeals a district court ruling dismissing its federal and Texas constitutional challenges to the Texas Incentive Program.
- The Incentive Program provides grants to production companies in Texas and is administered by the Music, Film, Television and Multimedia Office and the Texas Film Commission.
- Regulations allow denial of grants based on inappropriate content or content portraying Texas or Texans negatively, with standards of decency and respect for diverse beliefs guiding decisions.
- ChopShop previously received preliminary grant approval but was denied funding for Machete due to political controversy in 2010.
- Machete sought injunctive and declaratory relief, plus monetary damages, arguing violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Texas Constitution; Morales (current director) and Page (former director) moved to dismiss.
- District court granted dismissal; Machete appealed seeking limited discovery and leave to amend, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for prospective relief against Page in official capacity | Machete asserts ongoing threat of enforcement and standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief | No real and imminent threat; no ongoing injury or concrete plans for future films | Lacked standing; no live case or controversy for prospective relief |
| Qualified immunity for Morales in individual capacity | Morales violated clearly established rights by denying grant due to content | Rights not clearly established; government may fund or not fund for policy reasons | Morales entitled to qualified immunity; claims fail on the pleadings |
| First Amendment claim for viewpoint discrimination (Morales) | Denial biased against films with negative portrayal of Texas; viewpoint discrimination | Funding decisions may be selective without unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination | Not clearly established that state must fund films with negative portrayal; claim rejected |
| Due Process claim (Morales) | Incentive Program creates property interest and denial violated due process | Grants discretionary; no constitutionally protected property interest | No due process violation; discretionary program does not create protected entitlement |
| Texas Constitution free-speech claim | Denial akin to prior restraint under Texas Constitution | Not a prior restraint; funding denial does not forbid speech | No violation; district court correct to dismiss on pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading must show plausibility, not mere allegations)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (standard for pleading and qualified immunity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (sovereign immunity and official-capacity suit limitations)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974) (standing and the need for a live case or controversy)
- Stewart v. Early, 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011) (standing for prospective relief; real and immediate threat required)
- Finley v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 524 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1998) (government funding can be conditioned without implicating speech rights)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1991) (government funding conditions; coercive effect considerations)
- Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) (Texas Constitution free-speech greater rights in context of prior restraints)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (facial challenges to statutes require no set of circumstances where act would be valid)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) (standing and redressability; en banc analysis for relief)
- Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2005) (sovereign/state immunity and removal considerations)
- Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1981) (discretionary privileges do not create constitutionally protected interests)
- Presentation of administrative discretion under Finley; Nat'l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1998) (funding criteria constitutionality; general standards acceptable)