28 F.4th 669
5th Cir.2022Background
- Texas House Bill 25 (HB 25) repealed straight‑ticket voting, effective September 1, 2020.
- Plaintiffs (Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, DSCC, DCCC, and Sylvia Bruni) sued the Texas Secretary of State in August 2020, alleging the repeal would lengthen lines and violate the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and §2 of the Voting Rights Act; they sought a preliminary injunction.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction on constitutional undue‑burden grounds; a Fifth Circuit motions panel stayed that injunction before the 2020 election.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit (majority) reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction, holding the Secretary of State is not a proper defendant under Ex parte Young because enforcement (ballot printing and inclusion of straight‑party squares) lies with local election officials.
- The court recognized that the Voting Rights Act can abrogate state sovereign immunity, but because the district court’s injunction rested solely on constitutional claims, sovereign immunity barred those claims against the Secretary; the case was remanded.
- Judge Higginbotham dissented, arguing Ex parte Young and the Secretary’s statutory duties (uniformity, protecting voting rights, etc.) suffice to permit suit and that the panel should have addressed standing and the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Secretary a proper defendant under Ex parte Young (sovereign immunity)? | Secretary enforces election law and can be enjoined. | Secretary lacks enforcement connection; sovereign immunity bars suit against state. | No; Secretary not proper defendant; sovereign immunity bars constitutional claims; injunction vacated. |
| Do the Secretary’s statutory duties (voter education, uniformity, rulemaking, ballot forms) amount to enforcement? | These duties give the Secretary authority to implement/enforce HB 25. | Duties are informational/ministerial and do not compel local officials. | Duties insufficient to show enforcement connection; they do not constrain local officials. |
| Does the Voting Rights Act abrogate state sovereign immunity here? | §2 and other VRA provisions abrogate immunity, permitting suit. | Abrogation irrelevant to constitutional injunction at issue. | Court acknowledged VRA can abrogate immunity but district injunction rested only on constitutional claims, so immunity still barred those claims. |
| Standing and merits of preliminary injunction (undue‑burden claim)? | Plaintiffs have standing and showed undue burden on voting. | Lack of standing; merits were not properly shown. | Not decided on appeal—court resolved case on sovereign immunity and did not reach merits or standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (establishes exception to state sovereign immunity allowing suits against state officers who enforce unconstitutional laws)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (reaffirms state sovereign immunity principle)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (discusses limits on suits against states in state courts)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) (discusses Eleventh Amendment and limits on suits against states)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (establishes balancing test for election‑law burdens on voting)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (plurality balancing framework for ballot access challenges)
- City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 2019) (examines what enforcement connection is required under Ex parte Young)
- Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020) (discusses when Secretary’s form duties can constrain local officials and permit Ex parte Young relief)
- Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2020) (Secretary not responsible for printing ballots; local officials handle ballot content)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (plurality articulating a stricter ‘‘specially charged’’ enforcement nexus under Ex parte Young)
- Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Ins., 851 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2017) (explains ‘‘enforcement’’ as compulsion or constraint relevant to Ex parte Young)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. v. Kauffman, 981 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for preliminary injunctions)