User:Taylordw/sandbox/Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle
| Taylordw/sandbox/Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
| Full case name | Reliable Consultants, Inc., doing business as Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, Plaintiff-Appellant, PHE, Inc., doing business as Adam and Eve, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronnie Earle, in his official capacity only, Travis County District Attorney, Defendant-Appellee, State of Texas, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee |
| Decided | 12 February 2008 |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas Morrow Reavley, joined by Edward C. Prado |
| Concur/dissent | Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale |
Background
[edit]Part of the motive for the new laws came from citizens' groups such as Citizens for Morality in Media, Citizens Against Pornography, the Community Standards Coalition and Church Women United. These groups claimed that the laws were necessary to prevent the sexual abuse of children, a belief furthered by the Texas House Select Committee on Child Pornography: Its Related Causes and Control.[1] The obscene devices provision of the law was included because supporters said that sexual devices were sometimes found in possession of those arrested for child molestation.[2]
Proceedings
[edit]Reliable Consultants, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.
[edit]On 13 February 2004 Reliable Consultants, Inc. and Jennifer Rasmussen filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Lee Yeakel.
On 9 February 2006 Magistrate Judge Robert Pitman filed his Interim Report and Recommendation.
On 24 July 2006 Judge Yeakel issued his Final Judgement adopting the Report and Recommendation of Judge Pitman, dismissing the case.
Decision
[edit]Majority
[edit]Dissent
[edit]Subsequent developments
[edit]- In 2016 election
The case became a minor point in the 2016 primaries when Mother Jones journalist David Corn wrote about it.[3] U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General for the state of Texas from 2003–2008, at the time of the suit, so it was his office's responsibility to defend the law. Two days after the Mother Jones story was posted, Cruze called into WABC radio for an interview. Host Curtis Sliwa asked Senator Cruz if he becomes president whether he will "all of a sudden ban the sale of sexual toys, dildos, or anything that sexually stimulates you." Cruz replied, "Look, of course not. It’s a ridiculous question, and of course not. What people do in their own private time with theirselves [sic.] is their own business and it's none of government's business."[4] In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart wrote, "Senator Cruz personally believes that the Texas law in question was, as [Supreme Court] Justice [Clarence] Thomas said in another context, an 'uncommonly silly' law. But the office was nevertheless duty-bound to defend the policy judgment of the Texas Legislature."[5]
Analysis and significance
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ 66th Legislature of Texas, Interim Report 109-11 (1978)
- ^ Holcomb & May 1980, p. 856.
- ^ Corn & 13 April 2016.
- ^ Kaczynski & 15 April 2016.
- ^ Biesecker, Weissert & 16 April 2016 Justice Thomas's "uncommonly silly" comment comes from his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. In so-characterizing the Texas sodomy law, Justice Thomas was further referencing Justice Stewart’s dissent concerning contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. While Justice Thomas wrote that, "the law before the court today 'is...uncommonly silly'. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it," he nevertheless concluded that, "just like Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy.' "
Bibliography
[edit]- Official documents
- Pitman, Robert (9 February 2006). Interim Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. W.D. Tex.
- Law journal analyses
- Fasullo, Kristin (2009). "Beyond Lawrence v. Texas: Crafting a Fundamental Right to Sexual Privacy". Fordham Law Review. 77 (6). Fordham University School of Law: 2, 997–3, 043. PMID 19618552. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- Hayes, William Charles (Fall 2009). "Rabbit Hunting in the Supreme Court: The Constitutionality of State Prohibitions of Sexy Toy Sales following Lawrence v. Texas". Georgia Law Review. 44 (1). University of Georgia, School of Law: 245–284.
- Holcomb, Franklin (May 1980). "Texas' New Obscenity Laws: Redefining Taste". Houston Law Review. 17 (4). University of Houston Law Center: 835–872.
- Iguchi, Jamie (December 2009). "Satisfying Lawrence: The Fifth Circuit Strikes Ban on Sex Toy Sales" (PDF). U.C. Davis Law Review. 43 (2). University of California, Davis, School of Law: 655–682.
- Lindemann, Danielle J. (2006). "Pathology Full Circle: A History of Anti-Vibrator Legislation in the United States". Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 15 (1). Columbia Law School: 326–352.
- McKenna, Julie (2011). "Substantive Due Process / Privacy – Stay Calm, Don't Get Hysterical: A User's Guide to Arguing the Unconstitutionality of Anti-Vibrator Statutes". Western New England Law Review. 33 (1). Western New England University School of Law: 211–245.
- Rosen, Dan (1981). "Changing Standards of Obscenity in Texas". Southwestern Law Journal. 34 (5). Southern Methodist University Law Review: 1, 201–1, 227.
- Journalism
- "Texas Woman No Longer Faces Charge in the Sale of Sex Toys". Associated Press. 18 July 2004. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
- Barnett, Erica C. (11 August 2000). "Is That a Perfectly Legal, Anatomically Correct Condom Education Model, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?". Austin Chronicle. Austin, Tex. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
- Biesecker, Michael; Weissert, Will (16 April 2016). "Ted Cruz Defended Texas Ban on the Sale of Sex Toys in State". Austin American-Statesman. Austin, Tex. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
- Cooke, Charles C. W. (18 April 2016). "Ted Cruz's Work on the Dildo Case Was Admirable, Not Creepy". The Corner. National Review. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
- Corn, David (13 April 2016). "The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos". Mother Jones. Foundation for National Progress. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
- Kaczynski, Andrew (15 April 2016). "Ted Cruz Says He Won't Ban Dildos If He Becomes President". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
- LaCapria, Kim (14 April 2016). "Broad Stroke". Snopes. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
- Marcotte, Amanda (18 April 2016). "Ted Cruz's Dildo Dishonesty". Salon. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
- "Texas Mom Faces Trial for Selling Sex Toys". Reuters. 11 February 2004. Retrieved 21 April 2004.
- Smith, Jordan (25 April 2008). "Dildos No Longer a Hard Sell". Austin Chronicle. Austin, Tex. Retrieved 20 April 2016.
Precedents
[edit]Subsequent case law
[edit]- Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 08-1981 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009)
- 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover, 45 So. 3d 319, 341 (Ala. 2010)
Other related cases
[edit]Laws controlling the sale and possession of sexual devices have been tested in six states (including Texas):
- People ex rel. Tooley v. Seven Thirty-Five East Colfax, Inc., 697 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1985) overturned Colorado's anti-vibrator statute.
- State v. Hughes, 792 P.2d 1023 (Kan. 1990) struck down Kansas's anti-vibrator statute.
- State v. Brenan, 772 So. 2d 64 (La. 2000) struck Louisiana's anti-vibrator law.
- PHE, Inc. v. State, 877 So. 2d 1244 (Miss. 2004) upheld Mississippi's anti-vibrator law.
- Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007) upheld Alabama's obscenity statute.
Virginia's statute outlawing the sale of sexual devices (§18.2-373–374) has yet to be tested in the courts.
External links
[edit]- Text of Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2008) is available from: Findlaw Justia United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit website
Category:United States case law Category:United States courts of appeals cases Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cases Category:Sex and the law Category:Obscenity law