Tex. v. Travis Cnty., 910 F.3d 809

Texas enacted SB 4 (2017) to limit "sanctuary" policies: it requires local agencies to honor ICE detainer requests, bars local limits on immigration enforcement, authorizes AG enforcement, and provides defense/indemnity and grants to compliant localities. SB 4 took effect Sept. 1, 2017.
Hours after the governor signed SB 4, Texas and the Texas Attorney General sued in federal district court (Austin) seeking a declaratory judgment that SB 4 is constitutional and not preempted, naming Travis County, Austin, MALDEF, and others as defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing lack of Article III standing and that the suit impermissibly sought an advisory opinion; Texas amended to add First Amendment and Texas constitutional claims and reiterated federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing to seek a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment; Texas appealed.
The Fifth Circuit concluded it lacked statutory federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for a state-initiated declaratory action challenging a state law, relying principally on Franchise Tax Board; because jurisdiction was lacking, the court affirmed dismissal without reaching the standing question.
Related litigation in the San Antonio division (City of El Cenizo and others) proceeded to challenge SB 4; that consolidated litigation produced injunctions and appeals, and much of SB 4 is now in effect following appellate decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 supports a State's suit for a declaratory judgment on the validity/constitutionality of its own statute	Texas argued § 1331 permits the federal courts to hear its declaratory claim challenging SB 4's constitutionality and asserting federal questions	Defendants argued a State may not invoke federal-question jurisdiction to obtain a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment validating its own law; Franchise Tax Board bars such suits	Held: Dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331; Franchise Tax Board controls and precludes such state-initiated declaratory suits in federal court
Whether Texas had Article III standing to seek the declaratory judgment	Texas contended it had standing to seek a declaration that SB 4 is constitutional and not preempted	Defendants asserted Texas lacked Article III standing and the suit sought an advisory opinion on a not-yet-effective enforcement posture	Held: Court did not reach standing because it resolved lack of statutory jurisdiction first; the district court had dismissed on standing but Fifth Circuit affirmed on jurisdictional grounds

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (state cannot invoke federal-question jurisdiction to seek declaration validating its own law)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt., 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (appellate courts must assure their jurisdiction and that of lower courts)
Ballew v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2012) (12(b)(1) dismissal reviewed de novo)
Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 1998) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; statutory jurisdiction is prerequisite)
City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018) (related consolidated challenges to SB 4 and discussion of preliminary injunctions)
Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying Franchise Tax Board to dismiss territory's declaratory suit)
State of Mo. ex rel. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm'n v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332 (8th Cir. 1997) (applying Franchise Tax Board to dismiss state's declaratory constitutional claims)