Esperanza Peace & Justice Center

a n d p u b l i c f u n d i n g

<--Return to
Index of Esperanza v. City of San Antonio

Litigation Fact Sheet

Esperanza Center, San Antonio Lesbian and Gay Media Project, and VAN v. City of San Antonio

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Who are the parties to the suit?

The plaintiffs are the Esperanza Center and two organizations for which the Esperanza was the fiscal agent and which were also defunded: the San Antonio Lesbian and Gay Media Project and VAN.

The defendant is the City of San Antonio, which includes its governing body, the City Council, and its department, the Department of Arts and Cultural Affairs ("DACA").

What are the Plaintiffs' legal claims?

The Plaintiffs make three legal claims in this litigation:

1) That the City Council's decision to defund the Esperanza, the Media Project, and VAN was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although government actions and decisions will always have different effects on different groups of people, it is okay so long as there is a rational reason driving the decision (and so long as it is not defined by race, religion, etc., which we are NOT alleging here). The Supreme Court has held that a government's desire to appease public animus -- hate, fear, disapproval -- against a group is not a rational reason. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the City Council's defunding decision was made because of expressions of animus against the Esperanza. This campaign of negative feelings was organized by members of the local right-to-life movement, conservative radio talk show hosts, and others.

2) That the City Council's decision to eliminate the Esperanza's funding was based on the fact that the Esperanza has taken controversial positions and has voiced controversial opinions on a wide range of issues, from women's reproductive rights to diversity in the arts, from human rights in the Americas to diversity in lesbian and gay communities, which constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

3) That the City Council deliberated (meaning to discuss among six or more members of the Council) on the defunding decision in meetings that were not open to the public and in which no notes were taken or made available to the public in violation of the Texas Public Meetings Act.

The Plaintiffs are Requesting of the Court:

1) An order declaring that the City did violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights;

2) An order reversing the defunding decision and reinstating the approximately $76,000 that had been allocated to the Esperanza, the Media Project, and VAN; and

3) An order enjoining the city from future violations of the plaintiffs' rights and requiring the City to publish impartial criteria (that are not based on the viewpoint of applicants or on the existence of prejudice or animus against applicants) for its arts funding decisions, to allow applicants to present material and testimony regarding their qualifications under this criteria to the authorities making binding evaluations under the criteria, and to follow the criteria in making its funding decisions.

What do you think? E-mail us at esperanza@esperanzacenter.org.