Steven Elmer Hinds v. the State of Texas, 13-20-00200-CR

Appellant Steven Elmer Hinds was convicted by a jury of cockfighting under Tex. Penal Code § 42.105(b)(4)–(5) (owning/training cocks for exhibition; manufacturing/possessing gaffs/slashers); the trial court imposed a suspended 12‑month jail sentence and one year of community supervision.
Hinds filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing § 42.105 facially violated numerous provisions of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions; he raised ten issues on appeal.
The court found issues 2 and 4–10 waived for inadequate briefing and proceeded to decide only the Establishment Clause (Issue 1) and Takings Clause (Issue 3) facial challenges.
Legal standard: facial challenges reviewed de novo with a presumption of statutory validity; the challenger must show the statute is unconstitutional in all applications.
§ 42.105 defines a “cock” as a male domestic fowl and criminalizes conduct relating to cockfighting; the court treated the statute as having a secular purpose (public order/humane treatment) and as an exercise of the State’s police power.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Establishment Clause (First Amendment)	Hinds: statute amounts to government establishment of Pagan religion/animal worship.	State: statute has a secular purpose (humane treatment/public order), its primary effect is penal not religious, and it does not entangle government with religion.	Court: statute passes Lemon test; no Establishment Clause violation; Issue 1 overruled.
Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment)	Hinds: statute bans a core use of property (fighting birds), depriving owners of economically viable use—regulatory taking.	State: statute prohibits one narrow use but owners retain possession, sale, breeding, and other uses; regulation is a valid police‑power restriction and long‑standing.	Court: no compensable taking; statute affects a narrow strand of property rights and is a proper exercise of police power; Issue 3 overruled.
Waiver of other constitutional claims	Hinds: broadly asserted multiple constitutional violations (Amends I, IV–VI, VIII–X, XIV; Arts. V, VI).	State: briefed lack of analysis/citation; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) requires argument and authority.	Court: issues 2 and 4–10 waived for inadequate briefing; those claims forfeited.

Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (facial‑challenge standards)
Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (de novo review and presumption of validity)
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (requirement for facial challenge to show statute invalid in all applications)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1971) (Establishment Clause test)
Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1979) (regulation of personal property may not be a taking)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (total regulatory takings framework)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings principles)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (economic‑impact and investment‑backed expectations test)
Edmonson v. Pearce, 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) (upholding cockfighting ban against Takings Clause challenge)
Gonzalez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012) (historical discussion of Texas cockfighting prohibitions)