Texas State LULAC v. Paxton, 52 F.4th 248

In 2021 Texas enacted S.B. 1111 (effective Sept. 1, 2021), revising residency rules: (1) P.O. Box Provision—requires documentation of a residential address if registration uses a non-physical address; (2) Residence Provision—prohibits establishing/maintaining residence to influence an election; (3) Temporary Relocation Provision—limits designating a prior residence unless currently inhabited and intended to remain.
Plaintiffs LULAC and Voto Latino (voter-registration organizations) brought a pre-enforcement challenge under the First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments seeking to enjoin those provisions.
The district court found Plaintiffs lacked associational standing but had organizational standing based on (a) diversion of resources and (b) a chilling effect on speech; it enjoined the Residence and Temporary Rel. provisions in full and parts of the P.O. Box rule.
Texas appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and declined to reach the merits.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Plaintiffs lacked organizational standing (both diversion and chill theories), reversed the injunctions, and rendered judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of Article III jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Associational standing	Plaintiffs could represent affected members	Plaintiffs identified no affected members	No associational standing (district court also found none)
Organizational standing — diversion of resources	Plaintiffs diverted programs/funds (scholarships, out-of-state registration) to respond to S.B. 1111	Diversions were attributed to multiple recent election laws generally, not S.B. 1111 specifically	No standing — plaintiffs failed to show traceable/diverted resources were caused by S.B. 1111 alone
Organizational standing — chilled speech	Threatened enforcement of S.B. 1111 chills voter-registration and advice activities; risk of prosecution for inducing illegal registration	Statute criminalizes only knowing/intentionally inducing false statements; no credible threat or facial restriction on plaintiffs’ speech	No standing — plaintiffs failed to show their conduct was arguably proscribed or a credible threat of prosecution
Remedy / disposition	Plaintiffs sought injunction invalidating provisions	Texas sought reversal	Fifth Circuit reversed district court and rendered judgment dismissing claims for lack of Article III standing

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational diversion-of-resources standing)
Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (diversion must be direct result of challenged law)
NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (concrete diversionary injury test for organizations)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (no standing where alleged harm depends on speculative chain of events)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (credible threat and chill can confer standing)
Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020) (presumption about credible threat in pre-enforcement challenges to statutes that facially restrict speech)
Barilla v. City of Houston, 13 F.4th 427 (5th Cir. 2021) (three-prong test for chill-based organizational standing)
Zimmerman v. City of Austin, 881 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must show serious intention to engage in conduct arguably proscribed)
Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 946 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2019) (discussion of injury, causation, redressability triad)