- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar
American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar
American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar ↗
1:24-cv-01010W.D. Tex.9 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
02/03/2026
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment granted, SB 13 declared unconstitutional, and defendants enjoined from implementing or enforcing SB 13.
The federal district court for the Western District of Texas enjoined enforcement of a Texas law enacted in 2021 (Senate Bill 13 (SB 13)) that prohibited State of Texas entities from investing in or contracting with companies that “boycott” fossil fuel-based energy companies. As a threshold matter, the court ruled that the organization that challenged the law, American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), satisfied the test for associational standing for claims against the divestment provision of SB 13 based on the standing of two ASBC members that had been blacklisted. The court found that the interests ASBC sought to protect in the lawsuit were “‘germane’ to ASBC’s mission of encouraging sustainable investing and business practices” and that ASBC members did not need to participate in the suit given that ASBC sought only prospective and injunctive relief, as opposed to individualized damages. The court also concluded that ASBC had standing for a facial First Amendment challenge to SB 13’s contracting provision. On the merits, the court ruled that SB 13 violated the First Amendment because it was “facially overbroad” since its provisions affected “a broad range of protected activities,” including “speaking about the risks posed by fossil fuels, advocating against reliance on fossil fuels, and associating with like-minded organizations.” The court further concluded that SB 13 was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “because it fails to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited and does not provide explicit standards for determining compliance with the law.”
Decision
04/04/2025
Plaintiffs filed reply in support of motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Reply
02/28/2025
Defendants filed response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment.
Motion For Summary Judgment
01/24/2025
Plaintiffs filed motion for partial summary judgment.
Motion For Summary Judgment