deeming criminal district attorneys hired by private litigants to be “state actors” where attorneys advised sheriff of provisions of TRO and means of enforcing it, sought advice from state attorney general, and received regular reports from sheriff’s office about litigation opponents throughout litigation
How later courts described this case
- deeming criminal district attorneys hired by private litigants to be “state actors” where attorneys advised sheriff of provisions of TRO and means of enforcing it, sought advice from state attorney general, and received regular reports from sheriff’s office about litigation opponents throughout litigation
- attorney general, district attorney and deputy sheriff were extensively involved in enforcing an injunction
- state eagerly, and effectively, assisted a private party in shutting down a protest
- striking down similar provision of Texas law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM,
Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur with one caveat. This case came to the court below and here as a bag of confusing, broadly gauged arguments. This is particularly distressing because this substantive area demands surgical precision. The district court and Judge Brown have done an admirable job of presenting the confusing arguments in a coherent fashion. But I do not want the creation of this silk purse to mislead. Our treatment of standing, state action, and overbreadth respond to a unique set of facts, and one that has developed with the surrealistic sense that the two-hatted lawyers who obtained enforcement here have revived an earlier practice of using state court injunctions to bust unions. Because we do not retreat even a step from our insistence on standing, state action or substantial over-breadth, I join.