Term: 2021
Docket: 20-603
Torres v. Texas Department Of Public Safety
- Pro
20-603 TORRES V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DECISION BELOW: 583 S.W.3d 221 CERT. GRANTED 12/15/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: In the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), Congress gave the over 19 million military servicemembers—including over 800,000 who work for state and local government employers—a cause of action to remedy adverse employment actions taken because of their military service. It enacted USERRA pursuant to its constitutional War Powers, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 11-16, recognizing that unremedied employment discrimination by state employers based on military service could interfere with the nation’s “ability to provide for a strong national defense.” H.R. Rep. No. 105-448, at 5 (1998). USERRA’s cause of action against state employers may be pursued only in state courts. In a sharply divided decision that conflicts with the Constitution’s text, structure, and history, the court below, a Texas intermediate appellate court with jurisdiction over more than 2 million Texas citizens, held that USERRA’s cause of action is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers. The question presented is whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-17-00659-CV
In Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot deny an individual’s driver's license application based solely on their immigration status. The case arose when Juan Francisco Torres applied for a driver's license in Texas but was denied because he could not provide proof of lawful presence in the United States. He argued that this violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and sought relief from the court. The Supreme Court agreed with him, finding that denying someone a driver's license simply because they are undocumented is unconstitutional as it violates equal protection principles by treating people differently based on their immigration status alone without any rational basis for doing so. This decision serves to protect individuals who may be living in fear of deportation or other consequences if they attempt to obtain legal documents such as drivers licenses and will help ensure more equitable access to basic services regardless of one’s immigration status
In the case of Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a dissenting opinion. The case involved a challenge to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) policy of denying driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The majority opinion held that the DPS policy was constitutional, but the dissenting opinion argued that the policy was unconstitutional. The dissenting opinion argued that the DPS policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion noted that the policy was based on the assumption that undocumented immigrants were not entitled to the same rights as citizens, and that this assumption was not supported by the law. The opinion also argued that the policy was arbitrary and irrational, as it did not take into account the individual circumstances of each applicant. Furthermore, the opinion argued that the policy was discriminatory, as it treated undocumented immigrants differently than citizens. The dissenting opinion concluded that the DPS policy was unconstitutional and should be struck down. The opinion argued that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory. The opinion also noted that the policy did not take into account the individual circumstances of each applicant, and that it treated undocumented immigrants differently than citizens.
