Marc Veasey v. Greg Abbott, 888 F.3d 792

Background

Texas enacted SB 14 (2011), a strict photo‑ID law; plaintiffs (private parties and DOJ) challenged it under the Voting Rights Act §2 and the Fourteenth Amendment for discriminatory effect and purpose and as an unconstitutional burden on voting.
After trial the district court found both a discriminatory result and discriminatory purpose, permanently enjoined SB 14, and reinstated the prior law; on en banc review this court (Veasey II) affirmed disparate‑impact liability under §2 but reversed the discriminatory‑purpose finding and remanded for reconsideration and interim relief.
The district court adopted a negotiated interim remedy (a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment (DRI) process) for the 2016 election that allowed voters without SB 14 ID to cast a regular ballot upon signing the DRI and producing certain alternate documents.
In 2017 Texas passed SB 5 to replace SB 14, codifying a DRI-like reasonable‑impediment procedure, expanding acceptable documents and mobile EIC issuance, removing the interim form’s free‑text “other” box, and adding perjury warnings.
The district court (on remand) reaffirmed its discriminatory‑purpose finding as to SB 14, then permanently enjoined enforcement of both SB 14 and SB 5 and ordered further relief; this court stayed that injunction and, on appeal, reversed and rendered: the district court abused its discretion in enjoining SB 5 and ordering additional relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of challenge to SB 14 after enactment of SB 5	SB 5 is a continuation of the discriminatory scheme and thus enactment does not moot review of SB 14 or preclude injunctive relief against SB 5	The legislative replacement (SB 5) supersedes SB 14 and supplies the relief plaintiffs sought, rendering the controversy moot and requiring vacatur of prior rulings	Not moot: court may review both liability and effectiveness of remedial legislation; Operation PUSH approach applies so the appeal is live
Validity of district court’s renewed discriminatory‑purpose finding as to SB 14	Reaffirmed: evidence (procedural irregularities, rejection of ameliorative amendments, shifting rationales, contemporaneous remarks) shows race was a motivating factor	State contended remand required reconsideration and that infirm evidence had been excluded; any remaining evidence insufficient to sustain purpose finding	Majority did not reach full de novo reversal of discriminatory‑purpose finding here (focused on remedy); concurrence and dissent dispute whether finding should be sustained; but remedial review controls reversal of injunction
Whether SB 5 must be invalidated as tainted fruit of SB 14	SB 5 retains SB 14’s architecture and therefore cannot stand; a law enacted with discriminatory purpose must be eliminated root and branch	SB 5 materially cures the harms identified at trial (DRI covers all plaintiff witnesses’ burdens, expands acceptable documents, provides mobile EICs), so courts must defer to a legislative remedial solution absent proof SB 5 itself is unlawful	Held: district court abused its discretion by enjoining SB 5 without evidence that SB 5 is intentionally discriminatory or otherwise violates law; SB 5 must be reinstated unless separately challenged and proven invalid
Burden of proof and scope of equitable relief (deference to legislative remedy)	Once discriminatory purpose is found, broader remedial relief is required and state must not be allowed to rely on a superficial amendment to escape full relief	Traditional equitable principles and Operation PUSH require deference to a remedial statute unless plaintiffs prove it is unconstitutional; plaintiffs bear burden to challenge the new law	Held: district court misapplied standards—remedies must be tailored; the State need not be foreclosed from enacting a cure, and the court should not invalidate a remedial statute absent proof of its own infirmity

Key Cases Cited

Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church of Miami, Fla., Inc., 404 U.S. 412 (1972) (legislative replacement of statute ordinarily moots challenge to the prior law)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur of prior decisions may follow mootness)
Operation PUSH v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991) (courts should defer to remedial legislation unless plaintiffs prove that remedy is unconstitutional or unlawful)
Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (photo‑ID requirements upheld where adequate safeguards for indigent voters exist)
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (when a constitutional violation is found, the State bears burden to justify remedial proposal that directly addresses the violation)
Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971) (equitable relief in voting cases must be tailored and not exceed the scope of the violation)