Rims Barber v. Phil Bryant
860 F.3d 345
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mississippi enacted HB 1523, which protects persons who act according to three enumerated beliefs (marriage as between one man and one woman; sexual relations reserved to such marriage; sex defined by birth anatomy/genetics) from certain adverse state actions and creates a private right of action and defenses in private suits.
- Section 3 lists covered circumstances (religious organizations’ employment/housing/foster/adoption/marriage decisions; parental upbringing of foster/adoptive children; refusal by medical/mental-health providers and wedding-service businesses; sex-specific facility standards; certain state-employee speech; recusal by county clerks/judges) where state action is restricted.
- Two consolidated suits were filed by Mississippi residents and two organizations (Joshua Generation Church and Campaign for Southern Equality) challenging HB 1523 under the Establishment Clause and, by some plaintiffs, the Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of HB 1523; the State appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed Article III standing and concluded plaintiffs had not made a clear showing of an injury-in-fact (stigmatic or concrete), so the court reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring Establishment Clause claim (stigmatic injury) | Statute’s Section 2 sends a hostile/endorsement message that stigmatizes non-adherents, giving injury-in-fact | Plaintiffs lack a concrete, particularized injury — mere offense at statutory text is insufficient; no personal "encounter" | No standing: stigmatic injury from statutory text alone is not a concrete, particularized injury; must show personal confrontation or concrete effect |
| Taxpayer standing under Flast | CSE contends taxpayers can challenge state law under the Establishment Clause | State: HB 1523 does not authorize direct spending of tax revenues akin to taxing-and-spending programs; only incidental potential payments (damages/fees) | No taxpayer standing: HB 1523’s incidental potential pay-outs do not fall within Flast’s narrow exception |
| Equal Protection standing based on stigmatic harm | Plaintiffs say law confers privileges to those who discriminate, stigmatizing targeted groups | State: exposure to a discriminatory message without denial of equal treatment is insufficient | No standing: stigmatic harm alone insufficient for Equal Protection; plaintiffs must allege or show discriminatory treatment or imminent concrete injury |
| Standing based on preemption of local nondiscrimination policies | Plaintiffs argue HB 1523 preempts local policies, risking loss of remedies (analogy to Romer) | State: preemption is limited to enumerated Section 3 circumstances; plaintiffs must show plans to engage in covered conduct and imminent denial | No standing: preemption is limited and plaintiffs failed to allege concrete plans to engage in Section 3 conduct that would be denied or stripped of remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1978) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Art. III standing’s three-part test)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (narrow taxpayer-standing exception for taxing-and-spending challenges)
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (Establishment Clause injury in school prayer context)
- Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007) (requirement of personal exposure in Establishment Clause challenges to invocations)
- Moore v. Bryant, 853 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2017) (stigmatic injury alone insufficient for Equal Protection standing absent discriminatory treatment)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (future injury must be certainly impending; speculative chains insufficient)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (prudential limits on Establishment Clause standing where plaintiffs are merely offended by government message)
- Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2001) (direct exposure to policy can satisfy intangible-injury requirement where policy affects plaintiff’s conduct)