Summary
Justice Schenck dissents from the denial of en banc reconsideration in an interlocutory appeal involving defamation and conspiracy-to-defame claims arising from statements about abortion, the City of Waskom’s ordinance, and abortion-rights organizations. The dissent argues that the challenged statements constitute opinion or rhetorical hyperbole concerning matters of public concern, are protected by the First Amendment and Texas Constitution, and should be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
Holdings
- In Justice Schenck's dissenting view, statements characterizing abortion as murder and abortion-related organizations as criminal organizations were opinions or rhetorical hyperbole on a hotly debated matter of public concern, not actionable factual assertions.
- In Justice Schenck's dissenting view, the TCPA required the court to promptly dismiss the lawsuit because it targeted constitutionally protected political speech and the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case.
- In Justice Schenck's dissenting view, state judicial enforcement of defamation law could not constitutionally impose civil liability or litigation-based suppression on protected political rhetoric concerning abortion, Roe v. Wade, and a local ordinance.
Questions Presented
- Whether the challenged statements constituted protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole rather than actionable statements of fact under Texas defamation law.
- Whether the Texas Citizens Participation Act required prompt dismissal of claims targeting speech on matters of public concern when the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case.
- Whether applying Texas defamation law to impose litigation costs or damages for the challenged political speech would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments or the Texas Constitution.
- Whether the denial of TCPA dismissal should have been reversed and the case remanded with instructions to award appropriate attorney's fees.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (25)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 159, 165-66 (1973)(discussed)
- Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 13-14 (1970)(applied)
- Dickson v. Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, No. 07-21-00005-CV, 2021 WL 3930728 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 2, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)(followed)
- Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter, 573 S.W.3d 781, 795 (Tex. 2019)(applied)
- Backes v. Misko, 486 S.W.3d 7, 26 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. denied)(applied)
- Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex. 1989)(applied)
- Baumgart v. Archer, 581 S.W.3d 819, 825 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied)(applied)
- Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2010)(discussed)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 791 (1984)(discussed)
- City of Fort Worth v. Rylie, 602 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. 2020)(compared)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…