Texas Challenges California’s Interstate “Travel Ban” in the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction
Today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a suit against California in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. He challenged the constitutionality of California’s interstate “travel ban.” The policy prohibits state-funded travel to certain states that, in the California Attorney General’s judgment, fail to provide sufficient protections for LGBT rights. In particular, Texas is included on the list, in part, because of its baby-RFRA, which provides additional protections for the free exercise of religion.
Texas asserts that the “travel ban” violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.
Here is a summary of the argument:
13. California’s travel ban expressly targets the citizens and businesses of States, like Texas, that “offer more protection for religious freedom” than California believes is required by the First Amendment. A.16. The quintessential example cited by the California Legislature is a law that would protect “a wedding photographer who objected to same-sex marriage” on religious grounds from being forced “to provide photographic services for a same-sex wedding.” A.11; cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1723.
14. California’s travel ban is grounded in animus towards religion. …
30. As intended, the direct and indirect effects of the travel ban are, respectively, to harm the businesses in the targeted States and to deprive the targeted States of associated tax revenue.
38. Nothing requires California to fund interstate travel. But when California chooses to do so, it must not invidiously discriminate against other States and those States’ citizens and businesses. California’s travel ban cannot survive because it interferes “both with the maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce and wit
Article from Latest – Reason.com