‘Save Chick-fil-A’ Law Aimed at San Antonio Airport Upheld

(Bloomberg Law) -- Several San Antonio residents who sued the city after it blocked a Chick-fil-A from opening in the local airport over concerns about the fast food retailer's support of anti-LGBTQ organizations will be able to replead their case, the Texas Supreme Court said Friday.

Patrick Von Dohlen sued San Antonio alleging violations of the state's religious liberty statute, dubbed the “Save Chick-fil-A” law. The law prohibits government entities from taking “adverse actions” against businesses because of their religious beliefs or contributions to religious organizations.

The law went into effect on Sept. 1, 2019, six months after the San Antonio City Council voted to ban the fast food franchise from opening a location in the San Antonio International Airport because of the company's track record of anti-LGBTQ donations. The law includes a waiver of government immunity.

Chick-fil-A has faced criticism from LGBTQ activists after it was revealed in 2012 that the company donated through its charitable organization nearly $2 million to groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

Von Dohlen and the other petitioners failed to plead sufficient facts to support allegations that the religious liberty statute was violated, the Texas Supreme Court said. They didn't point to any specific action the city took after the law was enacted that could constitute an adverse reaction, the Texas Supreme Court said.

Because the airport ban took effect before the state statute existed, there is no factual allegation sufficient to invoke the section of the law that waives immunity for government entities. However, the court said the group should be given an opportunity to replead.

They ban opponents would only need to plead facts describing action the city took, Justice Justice Rebeca A. Huddle said for the majority. Because the statute requires more than “conclusory references” to the statute's elements, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to actually allege a violation, she added.

Justices Nathan L. Hecht, Debra Lehrmann, Jeff Boyd, Brett Busby, Jane Bland, and Evan A. Young joined the majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Jimmy Blacklock said that he disagrees that the residents failed to state a claim under the statute because the city council ban established a forward-looking policy that was directed to exclude Chick-fil-A from the airport's concessions contract.

Justice John P. Devine joined the concurring opinion.

Von Dohlen and the other petitioners were represented by the Fillmore Law Firm LLP and Mitchell Law PLLC. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP represented San Antonio.

The case is Von Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, Tex., No. 20-0725, 4/1/22.

To contact the reporter on this story: Janet Miranda in Houston at jmiranda@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Peggy Aulino at maulino@bloomberglaw.com

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.