5th Circuit Court of Appeals hands Liberty in Action a BIG win

5th Circuit Court of Appeals hands Liberty in Action a BIG win

Total victory for the First Amendment 

(December 19, 2025 – New Orleans, LA)  We the People – Liberty in Action (LIA) and plaintiffs Terri Hall and Rachel Vickers just notched a major win at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in its First Amendment lawsuit against the city of Kerrville. After LIA filed its lawsuit challenging the City’s sweeping peddler/solicitor ordinance, it sought an immediate Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. The trial court granted LIA a partial victory, but plaintiffs appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit.  Plaintiffs had a hearing in New Orleans November 5. Today, the court released its ruling overwhelmingly in favor of LIA and plaintiffs against the ordinance. 

“It’s a tremendous victory!” proclaimed Connor Ellington, one of the attorneys representing LIA and the plaintiffs. “The court agreed that our clients have standing to challenge the core restrictions, held that Kerrville’s ‘canvassing’ rules are content-based (so the hours/signs limits must be re-evaluated under strict scrutiny), rejected the City’s current justification for the streets/medians restriction, and sent that back for the district court to address the remaining injunction factors. The court also agreed we are likely to succeed against the permitting scheme. This is great news for the First Amendment and our clients. Big picture, this is vindication for our challenge against the Canvassers and Solicitors Ordinance and a reversal of most of Judge Rodriguez’s order back at the trial court.”

“We couldn’t be more thrilled! I knew in my bones this was unconstitutional from the day it became law. This is a victory for the Constitution and our First Amendment rights, and a total repudiation of tyrannical government seeking to take those rights away,” affirmed Terri Hall, Co-founder of LIA and plaintiff in the case.

Ellington went on to note, “The only item the Fifth Circuit took off the table was the minor-permitting provision, because no minor is a plaintiff in this suit. We now return to the district court to implement the Fifth Circuit’s guidance and seek the appropriately tailored injunctive relief.”

BACKGROUND:

When the City found out LIA was granted a TRO and preliminary injunction hearing in Judge Xavier Rodriguez’ court back in April of 2024, the City backed-off its equally unconstitutional electioneering ordinance, which was effectively a wholesale ban of anyone actually reaching a voter at the polls. Before the hearing, in the the City’s response to our motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction, the City declared to the court it would not be enforcing four whole sections of their electioneering ordinance. The city surrendered — at least on the most urgent aspect of its tyrannical attempt at election interference. It later repealed the entire electioneering ordinance. 

LIA believes the City’s electioneering ordinance was an attempt to remove its ability to distribute its voter guides to voters at the polls. Its restrictions went far beyond what state election law allows, effectively banning all contact with voters for 240 feet from the entranced to a poll (instead of the state-mandated 100 feet).

As if that wasn’t bad enough, even after the city was notified it was being sued, it doubled-down on its election interference by sending out a notice that it would now be dictating where canopies could be erected within the ‘approved’ electioneering zones, and that all election workers cars would be parked along the tent areas, further barring LIA volunteers from being able to reach a single voter. It was soon dubbed the ‘Great Wall of China.’ 

The trial judge questioned whether or not LIA even had standing. Typically, in a First Amendment case you do not have to be a resident nor does one need to be fined or arrested under the ordinance in order to have standing to challenge it in court. The chilling effect such overreach has on political and religious speech in particular is real and compelling, and applies to anyone engaging in such activities. 

After trying to make the case for emergency relief and a preliminary injunction for two and a half hours, the judge ultimately did not grant either. But that doesn’t mean LIA didn’t get a victory. It did. The City had to reverse course and tell the court it wouldn’t enforce key sections of its own ordinance in order to avoid the embarrassment of a TRO and/or an injunction. LIA’s First Amendment right to engage in political speech ultimately prevailed. 

It’s important to note a few things. One, the City had previously told the public at city council meetings that its ordinance did in fact include activity on public sidewalks. Yet in court, the City said the ordinance was limited to in the streets only. It also clarified religious magazines or tracts were not prohibited from distribution under the Canvassers and Solicitors Ordinance. This was a major area of concern where the city was silent, despite attempts to get clarification before it passed. So these early concessions by the City in itself represented a victory. 

Local media and the City fabricated a narrative where LIA had no standing and therefore no case. End of story. But the 5th Circuit clearly ruled LIA and plaintiffs have standing to sue and that they will likely prevail in their case.

The case will continue to move forward, likely over the next several years, before a final conclusion on the merits will be made. 

“We are in this for however long it takes to protect our First Amendment rights. Whatever hurdles we face, it will be well worth the fight,” acknowledges Hall.

Link to ruling here.