You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rowell v. Pettijohn

Citations: 865 F.3d 237; 2017 WL 2274015; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9143Docket: No. 15-50168

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; May 25, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The document addresses the remand of Rowell v. Pettijohn by the Supreme Court of the United States. Initially, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to Texas’s Anti-Surcharge Law, which prohibits merchants from imposing surcharges on credit-card purchases, concluding that the law did not violate First Amendment free-speech protections and was not unconstitutionally vague. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, which recognized that such laws regulate speech, the Supreme Court remanded Rowell v. Pettijohn for further consideration in light of the new precedent. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court for proceedings that align with the implications of Expressions Hair Design.

Legal Issues Addressed

First Amendment Free Speech Protections

Application: The court initially upheld the Texas Anti-Surcharge Law, finding no violation of free speech, but this was challenged following a relevant Supreme Court decision.

Reasoning: Initially, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to Texas’s Anti-Surcharge Law, which prohibits merchants from imposing surcharges on credit-card purchases, concluding that the law did not violate First Amendment free-speech protections.

Impact of Supreme Court Precedent on Lower Courts

Application: The Supreme Court's decision in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman prompted a remand for reconsideration of the case under the new understanding that such laws regulate speech.

Reasoning: However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, which recognized that such laws regulate speech, the Supreme Court remanded Rowell v. Pettijohn for further consideration in light of the new precedent.

Remand for Further Proceedings

Application: The case was sent back to the district court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the new precedent established by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning: Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court for proceedings that align with the implications of Expressions Hair Design.

Unconstitutionally Vague Laws

Application: The Fifth Circuit determined that the Texas Anti-Surcharge Law was not unconstitutionally vague, a decision later reconsidered due to subsequent legal developments.

Reasoning: Initially, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to Texas’s Anti-Surcharge Law ... and was not unconstitutionally vague.