Snowballs in Hell are Laughing

The Republican Party of Texas has filed a lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner over the cancelation of the GOP convention.

The lawsuit argues that gathering is protected under both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.https://t.co/9E0BSHTClZ

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) July 9, 2020

First reactions:

a) unless they seek a TRO, this is a useless suit.  Then again, if this is the basis of their complaint:

b) "Mayor Turner may not treat the [Republican Party of Texas] convention differently from that of the recent public protests that the Mayor supported," the petition reads. "Political viewpoint cannot be the basis for unequal treatment."

They have no hope of getting even a TRO.  That's not a legal complaint, IOW (and granted, it's not the entirety of the language of the complaint.  I don't have access to it, so I can only go by that quote just now.).  That's the "legal argument" of an ignorant layman.  (Please tell me they didn't pursue this pro se.  No, that would be legally impossible.  Still....)

I'm a bit rusty on civil procedure after all these years away, but I used to know to the minute when a Defendant's Original Answer was due in response to service of an original petition, and if memory serves it involves a Monday after 20 days from date of service.  20 days I'm still pretty sure about, which puts the time of response well past the date of the convention.  In other words, the City can sit on this until the end of July, when the whole thing is moot.  Unless the GOP seeks a TRO; and to do that, they have to be able to show a likelihood they will prevail on the merits at trial (however many months or years later that is).

Based on that quote, they don't have a case, much less a snowball's chance in hell.  I'm sure their lawyers did better than that, but the idea that public health concerns cannot override any public gathering is not even worth laughing at.  It's practically hornbook law.  The argument that "political viewpoint" is the basis for this decision is a joke.  They can't possibly prove that in court, especially when the City can bring in evidence of the difference in contagion risk from being outdoors (as the GOP wants to be in Jacksonville, FL) and being confined indoors.  There's also the greater risk now, v. almost 2 months ago when those protest marches were going on.  As well as the fact those marches lasted 2-3 hours at most, rather than being all day affairs for three days running.

There's a bit more from the petition revealed in an update to that article:

In its letter to the party Wednesday, Houston First cited a force majeure clause in its contract, which lets either party cancel the agreement if an occurrence "is beyond the reasonable control of the party whose performance is affected." That clause included "epidemics in the City of Houston."

In its lawsuit, the party agued that the mayor and Houston could in fact "perform if they wished, but they simply did not want to" and that Turner's instruction to his legal department to examine the contract counted as an admission thereof. "The admission means that he cannot use force majeure as a magical spell to escape what he has decided is an unwanted contract," the petition reads.

Well, that's an argument; but it's weak as tea grounds for a TRO.  Might work for a breach of contract claim, but what are the damages? Then again, considering the severity of the pandemic at this time, I don't see how that clause doesn't let Houston First out of the contract.

As I say, without a TRO, this suit is moot, because the City doesn't have to answer until the end of the month, and until then, absent a TRO hearing, there's nothing the state GOP can do, either.  I really don't know what their legal strategy is here.   There is a plea for damages (deposits, money that would have been raised, etc.), but that depends on the validity of the breach of contract claim.  Again, apparently no plea for a TRO/injunction, which means this is not a serious case.  Entirely possible I'm not seeing the most important parts of the petition, but what I've seen so far seems like a waste of effort.

There's also this:

This is the second lawsuit related to the cancelation filed on Thursday. Earlier, a handful of other Republicans including Houston activist Steve Hotze and Texas GOP secretary Josh Flynn, sued Turner, the city and Houston First.

Can't even imagine what grounds they have.  (Pretty sure Hotze was the guy behind this flyer two years ago.  It had to do with this (somehow the picture and the story got separated.  Go figure.)  He's a clown, IOW; and not the good kind.)

I don't think I have to read the Plaintiff's Original Petition after all.  I think a snowball in hell has more of a chance of victory than they do.

I'll let Mayor Turner have the last word:*

Houston Mayor @SylvesterTurner on @TexasGOP lawsuit over canceled in-person convention: "It's ironic that they're going to the courthouse ... to ask them to agree to allow 6,000 people to meet in-person when even the judicial community ... is hearing cases virtually."

— Cassi Pollock (@cassi_pollock) July 9, 2020

*Not really a word, but I can't get the image out of my head.  On a completely unrelated topic, a news reporter last night on the TeeVee went to a courthouse to interview a judge.  He was on the bench, but behind a large plexiglass box which walled him in on three sides.  He had a lap top open before him, on which he was clearly conducting hearings in an otherwise empty courtroom.  After Turner's quote,  can't get that image out of my head.  Honestly, unless the GOP has some slam-bang legal theories that aren't being reported, they need to get on the stick and find somewher else, or some way else, to do this convention of theirs.