Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/759-F-3d-388-5th-Cir-2014-13-50411-Texas-Division-Sons-of-Confederate-Veterans-Inc-v-Vandergriff-600251062
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:20:19+00:00

Document:
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
For TEXAS DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INCORPORATED, a Texas Corporation, GRANVEL J. BLOCK, Individually, RAY W. JAMES, Individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Roger James George Jr., Trial Attorney, John Robert McConnell, George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P., Austin, TX.
For VICTOR T. VANDERGRIFF, In His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board, CLIFFORD BUTLER, In His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, RAYMOND PALACIOS, JR., In His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, LAURA RYAN, In Her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, In His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, MARVIN RUSH, in his official capacity as a Member of the Board, JOHN WALKER, III, In His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, BLAKE INGRAM, In His Official Capacity as a Member of the Board, Defendants - Appellees: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX; Erika M. Kane, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and two of its officers (collectively " Texas SCV" ) appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Victor T. Vandergriff, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and seven other board members (collectively " the Board" ). Texas SCV argues that the Board violated its First Amendment right to free speech when the Board denied Texas SCV's application for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag. The district court rejected Texas SCV's arguments and found that the Board had made a reasonable, content-based regulation of private speech. We disagree, and because the Board engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination, we reverse.
The State of Texas requires that all registered motor vehicles display a license plate. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 504.943; 43 Tex. Admin. Code § 217.22. Texas offers a standard-issue license plate, but, for an additional fee, drivers may display a specialty license plate on their vehicles. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 504.008. Under Texas law, there are three different ways to create a specialty license plate. First, the legislature can create and specifically authorize a specialty license plate. See id . § 504.601-504.663. Second, any individual or organization can create a specialty plate through a third-party vendor. Id. § 504.6011(a). The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board must approve any plates created through the private vendor. 43 Tex. Admin. Code § 217.40.
The third and final means of creating a specialty license plate is at issue in this case. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board can issue a new specialty plate, either on its own or in response to an application from a nonprofit organization. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 504.801(a). When a nonprofit organization proposes a plate, the Board must approve the plate's design and " may refuse to create a new specialty license plate if the design might be offensive to any member of the public." Id. § 504.801(c). The proceeds from the sale of these specialty license plates go to either the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles or to a state agency of the nonprofit organization's choosing. Id. § 504.801(b), (e).
top of the plate in bold text, and " Sons of Confederate Veterans" runs in capitalized letters along the bottom of the plate. An outline of the state of Texas appears in the top, right corner of the proposed plate.
Texas SCV submitted its application in August 2009 to the Texas Department of Transportation, which was the agency responsible for administering the specialty license plate program at the time. The Department of Transportation put Texas SCV's proposed plate to a vote of its seven-member panel. During the first vote, three members voted to approve the plate, and two members voted against; two members failed to vote despite repeated efforts to encourage them to cast their vote. Instead of moving the plate to the public comment period, the Department of Transportation chose to hold another vote. During this second vote, one member voted to approve the plate, four voted against, and two members again failed to vote. The Department of Transportation then denied Texas SCV's application.
The Board . . . finds it necessary to deny [Texas SCV's] plate design application, specifically the confederate flag portion of the design, because public comments have shown that many members of the general public find the design offensive, and because such comments are reasonable. The Board finds that a significant portion of the public associate the confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups.
Texas SCV sued in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the Board's motion. First, the district court found that the specialty license plates were private, not government, speech. The court then analyzed Texas SCV's claims under the First Amendment and found that (1) the specialty license plate program was a nonpublic forum; (2) the Board's rejection of Texas SCV's plate " was a content-based restriction on speech, rather than a viewpoint-based limitation" ; and (3) the content-based regulation was reasonable. Thus, the district court concluded that the Board had not violated Texas SCV's rights under the First Amendment and entered judgment for the Board.1 Texas SCV timely appealed.
Neither party has argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction, but federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012). In Henderson v. Stalder, 407 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2005), we were asked to decide whether Louisiana's specialty license plate program discriminated against pro-choice views in violation of the First Amendment. Id. at 352. Instead of reaching the merits, we held that the Tax Injunction Act (" TIA" ), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, barred the suit, and we vacated and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 360. Because this case involves a seemingly similar fact pattern, we first consider whether the TIA bars the instant case.

References: § 504
 § 217
 § 504
 § 504
 § 504
 § 217
 § 504
 § 504
 § 504
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1341