A fu lle r dis c us sio n of the fa c tua l and pr oc e dura l ba c kg ro un d of thi s c a se is fo un d in t his 1 Court’s ear lier opinion. See De mo c ra c y Coa lit ion v. C it

y of Au sti n , 1 4 1 S. W. 3 d

2 8 2 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00284- CV

Ci tyof A ust in, App e lla nt

v. Dem ocrac y Coalition, S tefan Wray, P am Thompson, Timothy R. M esch, Risako Kurono,

Matt hew Korn, Kr istan Barber, Chand ra Ward, K ristin Richardson, Lucin da Beringer, Sonia S antana, Dougl as F oxvog, Ann S tark, and S usan a Alm anza, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN101586 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
In this case, the City

of Austin appea ls the district court’s d en i al of its plea to the jurisdiction. Bec ause the City has fa iled to establish that the district court lac ked sub ject-matter jurisdiction, we af

firm the judg ment of the district cour t.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND 1 In late April 2001, appellee s, individual membe rs of De mocra cy Coalition, enga g ed in a protest of ne wly -ele cted Pre sident Bush while the President was visiti ng various sites in Austin.Although only two office rs wer e named in the Coalition’s suit, there we re othe r member s 2 of the mounted patrol who wer e on the sc ene at the t i m e of the Coalition’s demonstration and applied the City ’s offic ial policies. See De mo c ra c yCoa lit ion v . Ci ty

of A us tin , 141 S.W .3d 282, 290 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). 2 The Coalition, whose protest followe d the President fr om The B ob Bullock Te x as State History Museum to the Gover

nor’s Mansion, maintained t h at the City violated their state a

nd fede ral constitutional rights to f

ree speec h and assembly
. In particula r, the Coalition cla imed that, during their protest outside the Gove rnor’ s Mansion, the City , throug h i t s p o l i ce de partment’s mounted patr ol and

of fi c ia l po lic ie s a s e xec ute d, pr e ve nte d th e m f ro m g athe ri ngin t

he ir tr a dit ion a l pr ote st 2 location adjac ent to the mansion, charge d h o rses at their members, a nd allowed supporte rs of the President ac cess to ar eas de nied to members of the Coalition. At trial, afte r the c lose of the Coalition’s evidenc e, the district cour t ent er ed an instructed ver dict ag ainst the Coalition on all fede ral and state claims brought ag ainst the City . The Coalition appealed that judg ment to this Court, a nd we reve rsed and re manded only the portion of the district c ourt’s judgme nt pe rtaining to the state constitutional claim. Specifica lly , we he ld that the qu e s ti o no f

w h e th e r th e Ci ty ’ s p o li c ie s , a s a p p li e d to th e Co a li ti o n , v io late d th e T exas Constit ution could not be deter mined as a matter of law

based on the rec ord bef

ore us. After rema nd of this state constitutional issue, the City challeng ed the district court’s ability to hear the case by

filing a plea to the jurisdiction. Afte r a he aring , the district court de nied the ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n. Th e City

the n b ro ug ht t

his int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l.3 AN AL YSI S We have jurisdiction to hear an interloc u t ory

appea l from a district cour t’s order g rantingor deny

ing a plea to the jurisdiction by a g overnme ntal unit. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 5 1. 01 4( a )( 8) (We st Su pp . 2 00 4- 05 ). Th e City of Au sti n is su c h a

g ov e rnme nta l un it. See id. § 101.001(3)( B) (West 2005).

A plea to the jur isdiction is a dilatory plea that seeks dismiss al of a c ase f or lac k of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)
. I f a court lac ks subject-matter jurisdiction in a particular c ase, the n it lacks authority to decide that case
. See M .D. Anderson Cance r Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W .3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2001)
. Whether a cour t lacks subject-matter

ju ri s d i ct ion is a question of law that we revie w de novo
. Te x as De p’ t of Pa rk s & W ildlif e v. M iranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). The City has pre sented two issues in s upport of its contention that the district court lacks subjec t-matter jurisdiction. The f irst issue involves what the City has terme d the “c oextensive” protec t i o n s of the United States a nd Texas Consti tutions. This argument asser ts that the district court lac ks jurisdiction based on principles of standing , re

s ju dic ata , and

c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l. I

n it s second issue, the City

argues that the d i s t ri ct court lac ks jurisdiction because there is not any jus tic ia ble iss ue fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt to r e so lve thr ou g h a

de c larator

y jud g me nt. We w ill a dd

re ss
eac h argument in turn.
The “C oe xt e nsiv e ne ss” of t he Uni te d St at e s a nd Te xa s C ons ti tu ti ons

The City argues that the United States a n d T ex as Constitut ions offer identical protec tion of fre e speec h and assembly in most instance s. I t also notes that a jury has alre ady

found4

that tw o in div idu a l c ity po lic e of fi c e rs did no t vi olate the Coa lit ion ’s fe de ra l f ir st a me ndme nt r ig hts
. There fore , the City

asser ts that, beca

use of the c oextensiveness of the prote ctio n s i n the state a nd fe de ra l c on sti tutio ns, it

c ou ld n ot h ave vio late d th e Coa lit ion ’s state c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts . T his
argume nt i s w ith out me ri t.

No t on ly do e s th is a

rgume nt f a il t o r e c og nize that thi s c a se inv olv e s a dif fe re nt p art

y
and a dif fe re nt c la im, it a lso c on fu se s th e c on se qu e nc e s o f h avin g“ c oe xten sive ” fe de ra l and state constitutional provisions. As discussed in our prior opinion, the Te x as Supreme Court ha s sugg ested that the Texas fre e spee ch provision may be broa der in some a

rea s than the equiva lent fede ral constitutional provision. D e m o c r a c y C o a l i t i o n v . C i t

y o f A us tin , 1 4 1 S. W. 3 d

2 8 2 , 2 9 7 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (c iting E x parte Tucci , 859 S.W .2d 1, 5 (Tex. 1993)). More rec ent
case s sugg est, howeve r, t hat federa l and st ate free speec h protec tions should be considered ide ntical unless a par

ty , using the text , history , and purpose of ar ticle I , section 8, ca

n demonstrate why

the state constit ution provides g reater prote ction. See id. (c i t i n g Texas Dep’ t of Transp. v. Barber , 111 S.W. 3d 86 , 1 06 (T e x. 20 03 ); Operation Resc ue-Nat’l v. Planne d Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Tex., Inc

. , 975 S.W .2d 546, 559 (Tex. 1998)). W e n oted that the Coalition had not demonstrated a

distinction. Id. Thus, to the extent that the feder al and state fre e spee ch and a ssembly provisions are ide nti c a l, w e may

uti lize ana ly

tic a l f ra me wo rk s o ri g inatin gfr om b oth fe de ra l and Te xas c a se s to addre ss claims arising under the fre e speech provisions of the Texas Cons tituti on. Indeed, our ear lier opinion ex amin ed Un i ted States and Te x as Supreme Court c ases to discuss conte nt-neutra l and5

viewpoint-neutra l restrictions on fre e expression. See id. at 298. We p re v i o u s ly stated that the
rec ord did not s h o w whether the City ’s ac tions were c ontent-neutra l or content-ba sed. Id. at 299. The outcome these a

naly tical fra meworks g ener ate will depe nd upon the fa cts at i s s u e in eac h individual case.

The City argues to the contra

ry . Ba sed on the jury ’s deter minati o n that two police office rs wer e not liable on the Co al i t i o n’s fe dera l free speec h claim, the City asser ts that the Coalition is collater ally estopped from bring ing this cla im ag ainst the City , that the Coalition lacks standing to sue the C ity , and that the C oalition’s free speec h claim base d on the Texas Constit ution is barr ed by

principles of re

s ju dic ata . We r ejec t the City ’s ar g uments. Although the jury may have uti lize d a sim ila r f re e sp e e c h an a ly sis in the e arl ie r ca se inv olv ing fe de ra l fr e e sp e e c h c la ims , th e ir verdic t as t o these poli ce office rs has no re s ju dic ata e ff

e c t on the c a se at ba

r, do e s n ot c oll ate ra lly estop the Coalition from bring ing the ir state constitutional fr ee speec h claim ag ainst the City , or deny them standing to sue. The Coalition’s c urre nt c laim involves the City of Austin, not these individual police off icer s. As might be e x pecte d, this claim h as s o m e distinct factual issues that we re not
re so lved in the e arl ie r t ri a l, d e sp ite the “ c oe xten siv e ” pr ote c tio ns of the fe de ra l and

state constitutions. I n other wor ds, mere ly applying the same a

naly tical fra mework in this trial as that
us e d in the e arl ie r t

ri a l do e s n ot guarant e e an id e nti c a l outc ome in a c a se inv olv ingpr e vio us ly
unre so lve d f

a c tua l is su e s and

a dif fe re nt d e fe nd ant. Be cause the prior ve rdict on the Coalition’s federa l free speec h claims ag ainst two office rs does n o t deprive the district court of jur isdiction over the Coalition’s state constitutional6

claims ag ainst the City , the cour t properly d en i ed t h e C i ty ’s plea to the jur isdiction. W e ther efor e
overr ule the City ’s first issue.
Existence of a Justiciabl e Issue to be Re solved by Declarator y Relief

The C i t y ’s sec ond issue is that the Coalition l acks a justiciable issue that will be resolved thr oug h a dec laratory judgme nt. Our pre vious opinion sugg ests otherwise. In our pre vious opinion we expl ained that decla ratory judgme nts are use d to declar e the rig hts and duties or status of par ties in a justiciable controve rsy . Id. at2 9 7 (c i t i n g Fr asier v. Y anes , 9 S.W. 3d

42 2, 42 7 ( Te x. App .— Aus ti n 199 9, no pe t.) ); see also Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. §§ 37 .0 01 -. 01 1 (We st 199 7) (Unif or m D e c larator

y Judg me nts Ac t) . H e re , a jus tic ia ble controve rsy

exis ts. As we stated, “ [t ]he justi ciable c ontroversy appell[ees] present is wh ether the City violated their rig hts under the state constitution.” Democ racy Coalition , 141 S.W .3d at 297. Our opinion specif

ic ally ref ere nced e vidence in the rec ord that some supporter s of the President we re allowed to re ach the fre e spee ch ar ea while the protestors’ acc ess was blocked, and that a pr otestor
was a lleg edly

asked to roll up a sig n protestingthe President. Id . at 298. Although we de clar ed that the City ’s po lic ie s w e re no t f a c ia lly vio lativ e of

the Coa lit ion ’s fr e e sp e e c h a nd a s s e m b l y p ro te c tio ns , we he ld t hat a fa c t qu e sti on re ma ine d re g ard ing the c on sti tut ion a lity of the City ’s po lic ie s as applied to the Coalition. See id. at 298-300. This question has yet to be answ ere d.

Moreove r, this justi ciable issue c ould be appr opriately resolved thr ough

a d e c laratory judgme nt. Dec laratory judgme nts can be used to cla rify constitutional im peratives. See id. at 296 (c i t i n g Frasier , 9 S.W. 3d

at 42 7; Ha

y s Co un ty v . H ay s Co un ty W ate r P lan ning P ’s hip , 106 S.W .3d 34 9, 35 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 03 , n o p e t.) (p art

y may br ingde c lara

tor y jud g me nt a c tio n to7

deter mine whether

commissioners court ha s acte d outside of its constituti onal and statutory authority )). Althoug h the Uniform De clar atory J udg ments Act does not conf er jurisdiction, a c ourt will have jurisdiction to gr ant dec laratory relief so long a s the claimant alre ady has an inde pendent
cause of ac tion under a c onstitut ional or s t atutory provision, or at common law. See F rasier , 9 S.W .3d at 427

. An d at least one c ourt has held that a rticle I , section 8 of the T exas Const itution constitutes an independe nt cause of ac tion for infring ement of the rig ht of fr ee s p ee ch. Jones v

. Me mo ria l H

os p. Sy s. , 746 S.W .2d 891, 893-94 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1988, no writ); see also Tex. Cons t. art. I , § 8.

Finally , since our e arlier

opinion, the Cit y

has produ ced only

a minimal amount of additional evidenc e, none of which addre sses the conce rns expressed in that opinion. I t is true that in d e c idi nga

ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n, the c ourt may , to a

li mi ted ex ten t, c on sid e r e vid e nc e to deter mine whether

subject-matter

jurisdiction ex ists. Se e Blan d Ind e p. Sc h. Di st. , 34 S.W .3d at 554. But none of the e vidence introduced by the City in the interim, including statutory provisions
conce rningthe Secr et Service as we ll as manuals and memos perta ining to that ag ency ’s policies on “investig ation” of pla

nned public demonstrations an d t h e City ’s “g ener al orde rs, policies, and pr oc e dure s” fo r t

he mou nte d p atr ol, is d isp os iti ve of thi s is su e . T he City

fa ile d to a

pply thi s evidenc e to the fa cts of the c ase or to addre ss the police off

icer s’ testimony

that the City ’s offic ial polic i es g overne d the mounted patrol’s a ctions on the day of the de monstration. See D emoc racy Coalit ion , 141 S.W .3d at 290. Thus, there rema ins a question of fa ct as to whe ther the policie s of the City of Austi n, as applied to the Coalition, violated the Coalition members’ r ights unde r the Texas Consti tution, thereby entitling them to dec lara

tory relief
.8 Be cause the Coalition members have a justiciable issue—whe ther the City violated their state c on s t i t u t i o n al rig hts—that can be resolved thr oug h decla ratory relief , we ove rrule the City ’s sec ond issue.
CO NC LU SION

The City of Austi n h as notestablished that the district cour t lacks subject- matter jurisdiction to hear this case . There fore , we aff irm the district court’s de nial of the City ’s plea to the jurisdiction.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: Nove mber 2, 2005