Federal judge denies bid to halt Kerrville ordinances

A federal judge forcefully denied Kerrville-based We The People Liberty In Action’s request for a temporary restraining order against the city of Kerrville’s adoption of two ordinances it said would restrict their First Amendment rights. 

Judge Xavier Rodriguez, in a detailed critique, said Terri Hall, Rachel Vickers and We The People Liberty In Action didn’t show adequate standing to earn an emergency injunction. Rodriguez wrote that it’s the plaintiff’s burden to make specific charges for granting a restraining order and that most of what they argued was generalities. 

“I think it speaks for itself,” said Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice of the decision. “It’s a great first step. The city is on the right track.” 

Ultimately, this is the first step in a long-term fight between the city and hardline political activists. Without going into the details of Monday’s hearing, We The People Liberty In Action told its supporters that it would continue to fight. 

“Even with the city backing down on parts of it, we will continue to move forward with the case on the fundamental First Amendment violations,” the group said in an email to its supporters. “That part could take anywhere from one to five years, but our constitutional rights are worth fighting for, and we must prevail in protecting them.”

On Monday, Rodriguez showed little patience for the unprepared lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case heard in the San Antonio-based U.S. District Court for Western Texas. The judge questioned Hall’s standing and urged the lawyers to drop Liberty In Action from the lawsuit because he called it a “loosey, goosey” organization. 

The lawsuit, filed last Thursday, featured two arguments:

• The city’s peddler, solicitor and canvasser ordinance, adopted last month, attacked their free speech rights because it contained “time, manner and place” elements, including a ban on door knocking between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. In all instances, Rodriguez denied the claims by the plaintiffs. 
• The city’s electioneering rules also came under assault, but the city made the tactical decision not to enforce two parts of the ordinance regarding signs. However, the plaintiffs argued that the town was limiting their First Amendment rights by restricting their activities on city property, including requiring the sequestration of tents. 

“Again, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order suffers from the fatal flaw that it does not specify how these parties have standing to challenge each individual provision of the Electioneering Ordinance,” Rodriguez wrote in his 20-page ruling. 

From the start of Monday’s hearing, Rodriguez flayed plaintiff attorneys Tony McDonald and Connor Ellington for being unprepared or unable to answer questions succinctly. Ellington, in particular, faced long periods of silence under questions from the judge — seemingly unable to speak. 

Thursday’s ruling didn’t hold back against the Liberty In Action Network’s (We The People Liberty In Action) involvement in the case. 

“However, Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a factual record sufficient to determine whether Plaintiff LIA could assert either associational or organizational standing,” the judge wrote in the footnotes. “Indeed, it is not even clear to the Court whether Plaintiff Vickers is a member of Plaintiff LIA. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to plead any theory of standing for LIA. Due to such pleading deficiencies, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff LIA can assert standing at this point.” 

Rodriguez also had plenty of questions for Vickers, whom he said had not shown harm other than suggestion of infringement. One of the plaintiff’s most significant complaints was about the Cailloux theater parking lot. 

“She further argued that individuals could roam the parking lot at will, regardless of any impact on traffic flow or safety considerations,” the Judge said of Vickers. “Defendant advances a compelling state interest for its electioneering restrictions: the “right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society.”‘