The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has taken up *Pool v. City of Houston* for the third time, marking another chapter in a prolonged constitutional challenge to the city's municipal charter requirements that has been winding through federal courts since 2019.
The case, designated as No. 24-20138 and filed Jan. 2, centers on a constitutional challenge brought by Joe Richard Pool III, Trenton Donn Pool, Accelevate2020 L.L.C., Liberty Initiative Fund, and Paul Jacob against the City of Houston and city officials Anna Russell and Pat J. Daniel, both named in their official capacities as city secretaries.
At the heart of the dispute are provisions in Houston's home rule charter that require petition circulators to be residents and registered voters of the city. The plaintiffs argue these residency and voter registration requirements violate constitutional principles, though the specific constitutional grounds are not detailed in the available court documents.
Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas, writing for a three-judge panel that also includes Circuit Judges Smith and Higginson, acknowledged the case's extensive appellate history. "This case has now been appealed to our court on three occasions, two of which are relevant for our discussion," Douglas wrote in the court's opinion.
The legal challenge has followed a complex procedural path since its inception. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under docket number 4:19-CV-2236, indicating it was first filed in 2019 during the tenure of the Trump administration.
In the first appeal, known as *Pool I*, a Fifth Circuit panel held that the appellants had standing to seek a permanent injunction against enforcement of the contested charter provisions. This ruling came despite the City of Houston's claims that it had already conceded the provisions were unconstitutional and amounted to so-called "zombie laws" - statutes that courts have deemed unenforceable but that remain on the books.
The concept of zombie laws presents a particular challenge in constitutional litigation. These provisions, while legally unenforceable following adverse court rulings, can create ongoing uncertainty for citizens and organizations who may be unsure whether the laws might be enforced in the future. Courts must often determine whether plaintiffs have sufficient standing to challenge such provisions and whether injunctive relief is appropriate.
The appellants' pursuit of a permanent injunction suggests they seek not merely a declaratory judgment that the provisions are unconstitutional, but also a court order that would formally prohibit the city from enforcing the residency and voter registration requirements for petition circulators. Such an injunction would provide clearer protection against any future enforcement attempts.
Petition circulation requirements have become a significant area of First Amendment litigation across the country. Courts have generally applied strict scrutiny to regulations that restrict who may gather petition signatures, recognizing that such activities constitute protected political speech and association. Residency requirements for petition circulators have faced particular constitutional challenges, with courts often finding them overly restrictive.
The involvement of multiple business entities alongside individual plaintiffs suggests the case may have broader implications for political and commercial speech in Houston. Accelevate2020 L.L.C. and Liberty Initiative Fund's participation indicates that organized political advocacy groups view the charter provisions as impediments to their activities.
The Fifth Circuit's willingness to hear the case for a third time indicates unresolved legal questions remain despite the previous appellate proceedings. This could suggest either that lower court proceedings have not fully resolved the constitutional issues or that new procedural questions have emerged requiring appellate review.
Houston's home rule charter, like those of other major Texas cities, governs various aspects of municipal operations and citizen participation in local government. The charter provisions at issue likely relate to petition drives for ballot initiatives, candidate nominations, or other forms of direct democracy that require signature gathering.
The case's extended timeline reflects the complexity of constitutional challenges to municipal regulations. Federal courts must balance cities' legitimate interests in regulating petition circulation against First Amendment protections for political speech and association. The multiple appeals suggest these competing interests have proven difficult to reconcile in this particular case.
The outcome of *Pool v. City of Houston* could have implications beyond Houston's city limits. Other Texas municipalities with similar charter provisions may be watching the case closely, as a definitive Fifth Circuit ruling could establish precedent for the entire circuit covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
As the case proceeds through its third appellate review, both constitutional law scholars and municipal government advocates will be monitoring how the Fifth Circuit balances local governance authority with federal constitutional protections for political expression and participation.