Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle , 538 F.3d 355 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                         REVISED MARCH 10, 2008
    
           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
    
                                                                               FILED
                                                                          February 12, 2008
                                   No. 06-51067
                                                                      Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                              Clerk
    RELIABLE CONSULTANTS, INC., doing business as Dreamer’s and Le
    Rouge Boutique
    
                                            Plaintiff - Appellant
    
    PHE, INC., doing business as Adam and Eve, Inc.
    
                                            Intervenor - Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    
    RONNIE EARLE, in his official capacity only, Travis County District
    Attorney
    
                                            Defendant - Appellee
    
    STATE OF TEXAS
    
                                            Intervenor - Defendant - Appellee
    
    
    
                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
    
    
    Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
                                               06-51067
    
           This case assesses the constitutionality of a Texas statute making it a
    crime to promote or sell sexual devices. The district court upheld the statute’s
    constitutionality and granted the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a
    claim. We reverse the judgment and hold that the statute has provisions that
    violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
                                            I. The Statute
           The forerunner of Texas’s obscenity statute was enacted in 1973 and had
    the modest goal of prohibiting “obscene material.”1                     Six years later, the
    legislature redefined “obscene material” so that it would track the Supreme
    Court’s definition of obscenity detailed in Miller v. California.2 That same year,
    the legislature also expanded the scope of the statute so that it would prohibit
    the “promotion” and “wholesale promotion” of “obscene devices,” which includes
    selling, giving, lending, distributing, or advertising for them.3 The legislature
    chose to broadly define “obscene device,” not using the Miller test, but as any
    device “designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human
    genital organs.”4 In 1985, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the
    statute did not violate an individual’s right to privacy, concluding that there was
    no constitutional right to “stimulate . . . another’s genitals with an object
    designed or marketed as useful primarily for that purpose.”5 Later, in 1993, a
    narrow affirmative defense was added to protect those who promoted “obscene
    devices” for “a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law
    
    
           1
               Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 43.21–.23 (Vernon 1973).
           2
             Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.21 (Vernon 1979) (defining “obscene material” in relation
    to the three-part “obscenity” test set forth in Miller v. California, 
    413 U.S. 15
    , 23–25, 
    93 S. Ct. 2607
    , 2614–16 (1973)).
           3
               Id. §§ 43.21(a)(5), (6).
           4
               Id. § 43.21(a)(7).
           5
               Yorko v. State, 
    690 S.W.2d 260
    , 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
    
                                                    2
                                               06-51067
    
    enforcement purpose.”6 Violating the statute can result in punishment of up to
    two years in jail.7
           In essence, the statute criminalizes the selling, advertising, giving, or
    lending of a device designed or marketed for sexual stimulation unless the
    defendant can prove that the device was sold, advertised, given, or lent for a
    statutorily-approved purpose. The statute, however, does not prohibit the use
    or possession of sexual devices for any purpose.
           Besides Texas, only three states have a similar obscene-devices statute:
    Mississippi,8 Alabama,9 and Virginia.10 The Mississippi supreme court has
    upheld its state’s statute against First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges.11
    Neither the Alabama nor Virginia supreme court has entertained a challenge to
    its state’s statute, but the Eleventh Circuit has rejected a Fourteenth
    Amendment challenge to Alabama’s statute.12 On the other hand, while the
    legislatures of Louisiana, Kansas, and Colorado had enacted obscene-devices
    statutes, each of their respective state supreme courts struck down its law on
    
    
    
    
           6
               Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.23(g) (Vernon 1993).
           7
            Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.35(a), 43.23(a)–(d). The full text of the statute is provided
    in the appendix. All subsequent citations to the statute are to the current version.
           8
               Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-105.
           9
               Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.2.
           10
                Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-373.
           11
                PHE, Inc. v. State, 
    877 So. 2d 1244
    , 1248–50 (Miss. 2004).
           
    12 Will. v
    . Morgan, 
    478 F.3d 1316
     (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, Williams v. King,
    
    128 S. Ct. 77
     (2007). The Williams case had previously been before the Eleventh Circuit,
    where the court held that the obscene-device ban did not burden a fundamental right. See
    Williams v. Attorney General, 
    378 F.3d 1232
    , 1233 (11th Cir. 2004) (remanding the case to the
    district court).
    
                                                   3
                                              06-51067
    
    Fourteenth Amendment grounds.13 Likewise, while the Georgia legislature had
    passed an obscene-device statute, the Eleventh Circuit recently struck it down.14
                                        II. This Proceeding
           Reliable Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Dreamer’s and Le Rouge Boutique
    operates four retail stores in Texas that carry a stock of sexual devices. The
    sexual devices are for off-premise, private use. PHE, Inc. d/b/a Adam & Eve, Inc.
    is also engaged in the retail distribution of sexual devices. It operates no public
    facilities in Texas, but rather sells sexual devices by internet and mail, and it
    distributes sexual devices ordered in Texas by mail and common carrier.
    Reliable and PHE desire to increase their sale of, and advertising for, sexual
    devices in Texas, and they fear prosecution under the statute if they do so.
           Reliable filed this declaratory action to challenge the constitutionality and
    enjoin the enforcement of the statutory provisions criminalizing the promotion
    of sexual devices. The complaint alleged that these provisions violate the
    substantive liberty rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and the
    commercial speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Later, PHE
    intervened as a plaintiff and sought similar relief.
           Reliable and PHE contend that many people in Texas, both married and
    unmarried, use sexual devices as an aspect of their sexual experiences. For
    some couples in which one partner may be physically unable to engage in
    intercourse, or in which a contagious disease, such as HIV, precludes
    intercourse, these devices may be one of the only ways to engage in a safe, sexual
    
    
           13
              See State v. Brenan, 
    772 So. 2d 64
    , 72–76 (La. 2000) (holding that the state’s obscene-
    devices statute fails rational-basis review under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
    Constitution); State v. Hughes, 
    792 P.2d 1023
    , 1031–32 (Kan. 1990) (holding that the state’s
    obscene-devices statute unconstitutionally burdens an individual’s Fourteenth Amendment
    right to privacy); People ex. rel. Tooley v. Seven Thirty-Five East Colfax, Inc., 
    697 P.2d 348
    ,
    369–70 (Colo. 1985) (same).
           14
             This That and the Other Gift and Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 
    439 F.3d 1275
    , 1278
    (11th Cir. 2006).
    
                                                   4
                                                 06-51067
    
    relationship. Others use sexual devices to treat a variety of therapeutic needs,
    such as erectile dysfunction. Courts scrutinizing sexual-device bans in other
    states have explained that an “extensive review of the medical necessity for
    sexual devices” shows that “it is common for trained experts in the field of
    human sexual behavior to use sexual aids in the treatment of their male and
    female patients’ sexual problems.”15 Still other individuals use sexual devices
    for non-therapeutic personal reasons, such as a desire to refrain from premarital
    intercourse.16
           The district court held, inter alia, that the statute does not violate the
    Fourteenth Amendment because there is no constitutionally protected right to
    publicly promote obscene devices. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment granting the
    motion to dismiss. We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
    claim de novo.17 The “court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them
    in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”18 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
    to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
    is plausible on its face.”19
    
    
    
           15
              Brenan, 772 So. 2d at 75. Similarly, in Hughes, the Kansas supreme court noted that
    recommending the use of sexual devices is “common in the treatment of anorgasmic women,”
    “who may be particularly susceptible to pelvic inflammatory diseases, psychological problems,
    and difficulty in marital relationships.” 792 P.2d at 1025.
           16
              A recent commentator points out that sexual devices, such as vibrators, were
    originally designed for medical purposes and they continue to be prescribed as such. Danielle
    J. Lindemann, Pathology Full Circle: A History of Anti-Vibrator Legislation in the United
    States, 15 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 326, 327–30, 336–41 (2006). In the early to mid-twentieth
    century their use for sexual pleasure became well known, and in the 1960s advertising for such
    devices began to emphasize their sexual benefits. Id. at 329–30.
           17
                Kaltenbach v. Richards, 
    464 F.3d 524
    , 526 (5th Cir. 2006).
           18
             Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 
    369 F.3d 464
    , 467 (5th Cir.
    2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
           19
                Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, --- U.S. ----, 
    127 S. Ct. 1955
    , 1974 (2007).
    
                                                     5
                                               06-51067
    
           With those standards in mind, we hold that the statute violates the
    Fourteenth Amendment.
                                 III. The Fourteenth Amendment
           The Plaintiffs’ claim is predicated upon the individual right under the
    Fourteenth Amendment to engage in private intimate conduct in the home
    without government intrusion. Because the asserted governmental interests for
    the law do not meet the applicable constitutional standard announced in
    Lawrence v. Texas,20 the statute cannot be constitutionally enforced.
           The State argues that Plaintiffs, who distribute sexual devices for profit,
    cannot assert the individual rights of their customers. This argument fails
    under the Supreme Court precedent holding that (1) bans on commercial
    transactions involving a product can unconstitutionally burden individual
    substantive due process rights and (2) lawsuits making this claim may be
    brought by providers of the product. In the landmark 1965 case of Griswold v.
    Connecticut, which invalidated a ban on the use of contraceptives, the Court
    recognized that the plaintiff pharmacists “have standing to raise the
    constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional
    relationship.”21 Other Supreme Court cases hold that businesses can assert the
    rights of their customers and that restricting the ability to purchase an item is
    tantamount to restricting that item’s use.22 In line with these cases, the statute
    
    
    
    
           20
                
    539 U.S. 558
    , 
    123 S. Ct. 2472
     (2003).
           21
                
    381 U.S. 479
    , 481, 
    85 S. Ct. 1678
    , 1679 (1965).
           22
              See, e.g., Carey v. Population Servs. Int’l, 
    431 U.S. 678
    , 683–91, 
    97 S. Ct. 2010
    ,
    2015–19 (1977) (holding that contraceptive sellers had standing to assert the constitutional
    rights of their users and striking down restrictions on the distribution and advertising of
    contraceptives); Washington v. Glucksberg, 
    521 U.S. 702
    , 723, 
    117 S. Ct. 2258
    , 2269 (1997)
    (scrutinizing a ban on providing suicide assistance as a burden on the right to receive suicide
    assistance).
    
                                                    6
                                               06-51067
    
    must be scrutinized for impermissible burdens on the constitutional rights of
    those who wish to use sexual devices.
           To determine the constitutional standard applicable to this claim, we must
    address what right is at stake. Plaintiffs claim that the right at stake is the
    individual’s substantive due process right to engage in private intimate conduct
    free from government intrusion. The State proposes a different right for the
    Plaintiffs: “the right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes
    unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”23 The
    Court in Lawrence—where it overruled its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick24 and
    struck down Texas’s sodomy ban—guides our decision:
           To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in
           certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put
           forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said
           marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The
           laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that
           purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their
           penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching
           consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct,
           sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.25
    
           The right the Court recognized was not simply a right to engage in the
    sexual act itself, but instead a right to be free from governmental intrusion
    regarding “the most private human contact, sexual behavior.” That Lawrence
    recognized this as a constitutional right is the only way to make sense of the fact
    that the Court explicitly chose to answer the following question in the
    
    
           23
              The State narrowly describes the right as the court did in Williams v. Attorney
    General of Alabama, 
    378 F.3d 1232
     (11th Cir. 2004). Id. at 1235–38 (describing the right as
    the right to use sex toys). But this would concoct a right contrary to the holding in Lawrence
    and evade the Court’s ruling. See id. at 1257 (Barkett, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority’s
    narrow framing of the right as inconsistent with Lawrence).
           24
                
    478 U.S. 186
    , 
    106 S. Ct. 2841
     (1986).
           25
                Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567, 123 S. Ct. at 2478.
    
                                                    7
                                              06-51067
    
    affirmative: “We granted certiorari . . . [to resolve whether] petitioners’ criminal
    convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital
    interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment.”26
          The State also argues that Lawrence does not apply because the Court
    there was concerned with how the statute targeted a specific class of people.
    Justice O’Connor concurred in the majority’s decision in Lawrence because she
    would have struck down the law on equal protection, not substantive due
    process, grounds.27 But the Court explicitly rested its holding on substantive due
    process, not equal protection.28 As discussed, the Court concluded that the
    sodomy law violated the substantive due process right to engage in consensual
    intimate conduct in the home free from government intrusion. Once Lawrence
    is properly understood to explain the contours of the substantive due process
    right to sexual intimacy, the case plainly applies.
          Because of Lawrence, the issue before us is whether the Texas statute
    impermissibly burdens the individual’s substantive due process right to engage
    in private intimate conduct of his or her choosing. Contrary to the district
    court’s conclusion, we hold that the Texas law burdens this constitutional right.
    An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private
    intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device
    in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right. This conclusion is
    consistent with the decisions in Carey and Griswold, where the Court held that
    restricting commercial transactions unconstitutionally burdened the exercise of
    individual rights. Indeed, under this statute it is even illegal to “lend” or “give”
    
    
          26
               Id. at 564, 123 S. Ct. at 2476 (emphasis added).
          27
               Id. at 579–85, 123 S. Ct. at 2484–88 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
          28
               Id. at 574–75, 123 S. Ct. at 2481–82.
    
                                                   8
                                              06-51067
    
    a sexual device to another person.29 This further restricts the exercise of the
    constitutional right to engage in private intimate conduct in the home free from
    government intrusion. It also undercuts any argument that the statute only
    affects public conduct.
           The dissent relegates the burden on this right to rational basis review.
    The State says we have two alternatives: (1) strict scrutiny if Lawrence
    established this right as a fundamental right or (2) rational basis review if
    Lawrence did not. There has been debate about this and the Eleventh Circuit
    concluded that Lawrence did not establish a fundamental right.30
           The Supreme Court did not address the classification, nor do we need to
    do so, because the Court expressly held that “individual decisions by married
    persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not
    intended to produce offspring, are a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process
    Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to
    intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”31 The Court also
    carefully delineated the types of governmental interests that are constitutionally
    insufficient to sustain a law that infringes on this substantive due process right.
    Therefore, our responsibility as an inferior federal court is mandatory and
    straightforward. We must apply Lawrence to the Texas statute.32
    
    
    
    
           29
            Texas Penal Code Section 43.21(a)(5) defines “promote” to include to “give” or “lend.”
    And the statute at Section 43.23(c) makes it a crime to “promote” sexual devices.
           30
                Williams, 378 F.3d at 1234–39.
           31
            Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S. Ct. at 1283 (quoting with approval Bowers v.
    Hardwick, 
    478 U.S. 186
    , 216, 
    106 S. Ct. 2841
    , 2857 (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
           32
             Lawrence did not categorize the right to sexual privacy as a fundamental right, and
    we do not purport to do so here. Instead, we simply follow the precise instructions from
    Lawrence and hold that the statute violates the right to sexual privacy, however it is otherwise
    described.
    
                                                   9
                                               06-51067
    
           The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The
    asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex
    and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting
    the commercial sale of sex.”
           These interests in “public morality” cannot constitutionally sustain the
    statute after Lawrence.33 To uphold the statute would be to ignore the holding
    in Lawrence and allow the government to burden consensual private intimate
    conduct simply by deeming it morally offensive. In Lawrence, Texas’s only
    argument was that the anti-sodomy law reflected the moral judgment of the
    legislature.34 The Court expressly rejected the State’s rationale by adopting
    Justice Stevens’ view in Bowers as “controlling” and quoting Justice Stevens’
    statement that “‘the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally
    viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding
    a law prohibiting the practice.’”35 Thus, if in Lawrence public morality was an
    insufficient justification for a law that restricted “adult consensual intimacy in
    
    
    
    
           33
              The Eleventh Circuit disagreed in Williams v. Morgan, 
    478 F.3d 1316
     (11th Cir.
    2007), cert. denied, Williams v. King, 
    128 S. Ct. 77
     (2007). There, the court held that
    Alabama’s interest in “public morality” was a constitutional justification for the state’s obscene
    devices statute. Id. at 1321–24. That fails to recognize the Lawrence holding that public
    morality cannot justify a law that regulates an individual’s private sexual conduct and does
    not relate to prostitution, the potential for injury or coercion, or public conduct.
           34
              See Respondent’s Brief, Lawrence, 
    539 U.S. 558
     (No. 02-102), 
    2003 WL 470184
    , at
    *48 (internal footnote omitted) (“The prohibition of homosexual conduct in [the anti-sodomy
    statute] represents the reasoned judgment of the Texas Legislature that such conduct is
    immoral and should be deterred . . . . [L]ong-established principles of federalism dictate that
    the Court defer to the Texas Legislature’s judgment and to the collective good sense of the
    people of the State of Texas, in their effort to enforce public morality and promote family
    values through the promulgation of penal statutes such as [the anti-sodomy statute].”).
           35
             Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577–78, 123 S. Ct. at 2483–84 (quoting Bowers, 478 U.S. at
    216, 106 S. Ct. At 2841 (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
    
                                                   10
                                                06-51067
    
    the home,” then public morality also cannot serve as a rational basis for Texas’s
    statute, which also regulates private sexual intimacy.36
           Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for
    the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves
    is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices
    and their advertisement.”             It is undeniable that the government has a
    compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression.37
    However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a
    heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected
    individual right.38 Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection
    between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers
    none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification.
           The alleged governmental interest in protecting “unwilling adults” from
    exposure to sexual devices is even less convincing. The Court has consistently
    refused to burden individual rights out of concern for the protection of “unwilling
    recipients.”39 Furthermore, this asserted interest bears no rational relation to
    the restriction on sales of sexual devices because an adult cannot buy a sexual
    
    
    
    
           36
              See id. at 564, 123 S. Ct. at 2476. The State offers cases for the general proposition
    that protecting morality is a legitimate governmental interest. See, e.g., Paris Adult Theatre
    I v. Slaton, 
    413 U.S. 49
    , 61, 
    93 S. Ct. 2628
    , 2637 (1973). Our holding in no way overtly
    expresses or implies that public morality can never be a constitutional justification for a law.
    We merely hold that after Lawrence it is not a constitutional justification for this statute.
           37
                See, e.g., FCC v. Pacifica Found., 
    438 U.S. 726
    , 
    98 S. Ct. 3026
     (1978).
           38
                  See Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 
    518 U.S. 727
    , 759, 
    116 S. Ct. 2374
    , 2393 (1996) (holding, in the First Amendment context, that “[n]o provision, we
    concede, short of an absolute ban, can offer certain protection against assault by a determined
    child[;] generally, [however,] this fact alone [does not] justify reduc[ing] the adult population
    . . . to . . . only what is fit for children” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
           39
             Carey, 431 U.S. at 700–02, 97 S. Ct. at 2024–25; see Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods.
    Corp., 
    463 U.S. 60
    , 71–72, 
    103 S. Ct. 2875
    , 2883 (1983).
    
                                                    11
                                             06-51067
    
    device without making the affirmative decision to visit a store and make the
    purchase.
           The State argues that if this statute, which proscribes the distribution of
    sexual devices, is struck down, it is equivalent to extending substantive due
    process protection to the “commercial sale of sex.” Not so. The sale of a device
    that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in
    the home is not the “sale of sex” (prostitution). Following the State’s logic, the
    sale of contraceptives would be equivalent to the sale of sex because
    contraceptives are intended to be used for the pursuit of sexual gratification
    unrelated to procreation. This argument cannot be accepted as a justification
    to limit the sale of contraceptives. The comparison highlights why the focus of
    our analysis is on the burden the statute puts on the individual’s right to make
    private decisions about consensual intimate conduct. Furthermore, there are
    justifications for criminalizing prostitution other than public morality, including
    promoting public safety and preventing injury and coercion.40
           Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a
    public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about
    public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling
    what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally
    opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an
    insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence.
    
    
    
    
           40
              To guide future courts, the Court in Lawrence delineated what the right is not about:
    “The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured
    or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It
    does not involve public conduct or prostitution.” 539 U.S. at 578, 123 S. Ct. at 2484. Instead,
    the right at issue in Lawrence dealt with two adults engaging in consensual sexual conduct.
    Id.
    
                                                  12
                                            06-51067
    
          It follows that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves
    as obscene and prohibit their sale.41 Nothing here said or held protects the
    public display of material that is obscene as defined by the Supreme Court—i.e.,
    the language in Section 43.21(a)(1) of this statute, excluding the words in the
    provision defining as obscene any device designed or marketed for sexual
    stimulation. Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices,
    government interference with their personal and private use violates the
    Constitution.
          Appellants urge us to sustain their First Amendment claim to protect the
    advertisement of these devices. We decline to explore this claim because if it is
    necessary, it may be premature.           Advertisements of the devices could be
    prohibited if they are obscene—meaning obscene as defined by the Supreme
    Court or by the bulk of Section 43.21(a)(1). But the State may not prohibit the
    promotion or sale of a bed, even one specially designed or marketed for sexual
    purposes, by merely defining it as obscene. We have held here that the State
    may not burden the use of these devices by prohibiting their sale. If other issues
    need to be pursued, the parties are free to do so on remand in proceedings
    consistent with this decision.
    
    
    Judgment REVERSED and the case REMANDED.
    
    
    
    
          41
             See State v. Brenan, 
    772 So. 2d 64
    , 74 (La. 2000) (holding that “[t]he legislature
    cannot make a device automatically obscene merely through the use of labels”); State v.
    Hughes, 
    792 P.2d 1023
    , 1031 (Kan. 1990) (“The legislature may not declare a device obscene
    merely because it relates to human sexual activity.”).
    
                                                13
                                         06-51067
    
                                       APPENDIX
                                    Texas Penal Code
    § 43.21. Definitions
    (a) In this subchapter:
      (1) “Obscene” means material or a performance that:
        (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
        would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
        (B) depicts or describes:
           (i) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual
           acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual
           intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or
           (ii) patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation,
           excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals,
           the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal,
           covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed
           and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital
           organs; and
        (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific
        value.
      (2) “Material” means anything tangible that is capable of being used or
      adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading,
      observation, sound, or in any other manner, but does not include an actual
      three dimensional obscene device.
      (3) “Performance” means a play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition
      performed before an audience.
      (4) “Patently offensive” means so offensive on its face as to affront current
      community standards of decency.
    
    
    
                                             14
                                   06-51067
      (5) “Promote” means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail,
      deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present,
      exhibit, or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.
      (6) “Wholesale promote” means to manufacture, issue, sell, provide, mail,
      deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, or to
      offer or agree to do the same for purpose of resale.
      (7) “Obscene device” means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina,
      designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital
      organs.
    (b) If any of the depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct described in this
    section are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawfully
    included herein, this declaration shall not invalidate this section as to other
    patently offensive sexual conduct included herein.
    
    
    ....
    
    
    § 43.23. Obscenity
    (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he
    wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene
    material or obscene device.
    (b) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (a) is a
    state jail felony.
    (c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he:
      (1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or
      obscene device; or
      (2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a
      portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.
    
    
    
    
                                             15
                                     06-51067
    (d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (c) is a
    Class A misdemeanor.
    (e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene
    device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in
    the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and
    character.
    (f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar
    obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
    (g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person
    who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does
    so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement
    purpose.
    (h) The punishment for an offense under Subsection (a) is increased to the
    punishment for a felony of the third degree and the punishment for an offense
    under Subsection (c) is increased to the punishment for a state jail felony if it is
    shown on the trial of the offense that obscene material that is the subject of the
    offense visually depicts activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B) engaged in
    by:
      (1) a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was
      made;
      (2) an image that to a reasonable person would be virtually indistinguishable
      from the image of a child younger than 18 years of age; or
      (3) an image created, adapted, or modified to be the image of an identifiable
      child.
    (i) In this section, “identifiable child” means a person, recognizable as an actual
    person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such
    as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature:
      (1) who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual depiction was
      created, adapted, or modified; or
    
                                             16
                                   06-51067
      (2) whose image as a person younger than 18 years of age was used in
      creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction.
    (j) An attorney representing the state who seeks an increase in punishment
    under Subsection (h)(3) is not required to prove the actual identity of an
    identifiable child.
    
    
    
    
                                          17
                                          06-51067
    
    RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and
    dissenting in part:
          Concerning federalism and comity, few federal-court actions are more
    friction-producing than holding a state statute unconstitutional. To make
    matters worse, it is indeed rare to do so while, as here, reviewing a Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of challenges to the statute.
    Notwithstanding the best of intentions, the esteemed majority goes astray in
    both regards for the Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim.
          For the Texas statute at issue, I concur in vacating the dismissal of the
    First Amendment commercial-speech claim (advertising) and remanding it for
    further proceedings, if any. On the other hand, the invalidation of the statute
    is legally incorrect for the Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim
    (sale). The dismissal of that claim should be affirmed. Accordingly, regarding
    that claim, I must respectfully dissent.
                                              I.
          The statute prohibits, inter alia, the sale or other promotion, such as
    advertising, of “obscene devices”:       those “designed or marketed as useful
    primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs”. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
    § 43.21(a)(7); id. § 43.23; see also id. § 43.21(a)(1)(B)(ii). Such devices include,
    but are not limited to, “a dildo or artificial vagina”. Id. at § 43.21(a)(7). The
    statute provides an affirmative defense for persons who “ possess[] or promote[]
    [obscene devices] . . . for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or
    law enforcement purpose”. Id. at § 43.23(f).
          Plaintiffs’ complaints claim the statute unconstitutionally restricts
    commercial speech (advertising) under the First Amendment, as incorporated
    by the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaints also claim the “sale” portion of
    the statute violates substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
    
    
                                              18
                                        06-51067
    because it impinges upon the right to engage in private intimate conduct without
    governmental intrusion. See Lawrence v. Texas, 
    539 U.S. 558
     (2003). (Reliable
    Consultants, Inc. also presents an additional substantive-due-process claim
    under a parallel provision in the Texas Constitution. That state-law claim is
    subsumed within the following discussion of the federal constitutional claim.)
          The complaints, however, do not include plaintiffs’ advertisements, if any,
    or describe with any specificity the sexual devices they seek to sell. The
    complaints were dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
                                            II.
          For starters, and contrary to the majority’s position, Maj. Opn. at 12-13,
    the proscribed conduct is not private sexual conduct. Instead, for obscene
    devices, the statute proscribes only the sale or other promotion (such as
    advertising) of those devices, including, but not limited to, a dildo or artificial
    vagina.
          For our de novo review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we, needless to say,
    “accept all factual allegations in the [complaint] as true and examine whether
    the allegations state a claim sufficient to avoid dismissal”. E.g., Grisham v.
    United States, 
    103 F.3d 24
    , 25 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). To avoid such
    dismissal, the complaint must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief
    that is plausible on its face”. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 
    127 S. Ct. 1955
    , 1974
    (2007). “Factual allegations [in the complaint] must be enough to raise a right
    to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations
    in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965 (quotation
    marks, citations, and footnote omitted). In other words, with some exceptions,
    our review is limited to the complaint, including any attachments. See Hogan
    v. City of Houston, 
    819 F.2d 604
    , 604 (5th Cir. 1987); Fin. Acquisition Partners
    LP v. Blackwell, 
    440 F.3d 278
    , 286 (5th Cir. 2006) (allowing review of documents
    in the public record) (citation omitted).
    
    
                                            19
                                         06-51067
                                            A.
          As the majority properly holds, the commercial-speech claim (advertising)
    may be premature. Maj. Opn. at 13. This is especially true for an as-applied
    challenge, which may be the only basis for seeking to have the statute held
    unconstitutional for that claim. See Board of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 
    492 U.S. 469
    , 482-83 (1989) (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 
    436 U.S. 447
    , 462
    n.20 (1978)); see also Richard H. Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and
    Third-Party Standing, 113 HARV. L. REV. 1321, 1344 (2000) (discussing as-
    applied challenges as the only basis for attacking statute on commercial speech
    grounds).
          For example, as noted supra, the complaints neither include nor describe
    the advertising, if any, plaintiffs seek to utilize. On the other hand, pursuant to
    Rule 8, only notice pleadings are required. On that basis, plaintiffs have
    perhaps stated a claim sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
          As the majority holds, that issue should not be decided today.           No
    authority need be cited for another bedrock principle underlying federalism and
    comity: federal courts, if possible, should avoid ruling on constitutional issues.
    “The delicate power of pronouncing [a statute] unconstitutional is not to be
    exercised with reference to hypothetical cases thus imagined”. United States v.
    Raines, 
    362 U.S. 17
    , 22 (1960). Remanding the commercial-speech claim avoids
    the “premature interpretation[] of [a] statute[] in [an] area[] where [its]
    constitutional application [is] cloudy”. Id.
          Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s vacating the dismissal of the
    commercial-speech claim and remanding it for further proceedings, if any.
                                             B.
          My disagreement with the majority’s analysis of the Fourteenth
    Amendment substantive-due-process claim is fundamental. In my view, the
    district court correctly ruled plaintiffs fail to state such a claim.
    
    
                                             20
                                     06-51067
          The majority avoids determining what level of scrutiny to apply to the
    substantive-due-process claim, stating only:
          The Supreme Court did not address the classification [of the level of
          scrutiny], nor do we need to do so, because the Court expressly held
          that “individual decisions by married persons, concerning the
          intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to
          produce offspring, are a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due
          Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this
          protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as
          married persons.”
    Maj. Opn. at 9 (quoting Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578). I believe, however, that the
    level of scrutiny to be employed is of critical importance to our review.
          For the reasons stated by the Eleventh Circuit in its analysis of a statute
    materially identical to the one in issue, I conclude Lawrence declined to employ
    a fundamental-rights analysis, choosing instead to apply rational-basis review.
    See Williams v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 
    378 F.3d 1232
    , 1236 (11th Cir. 2004)
    (citation omitted); see also Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578 (“The Texas statute
    furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the
    personal and private life of the individual.” (emphasis added)); Lawrence, 539
    U.S. at 594 (Scalia, J. dissenting) (“Not once does [the Court] describe
    homosexual sodomy as a ‘fundamental right’ or a ‘fundamental liberty interest,’
    nor does it subject the Texas statute to strict scrutiny. Instead, having failed to
    establish that the right to homosexual sodomy is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s
    history and tradition,’ the Court concludes that the application of Texas’s statute
    to petitioners’ conduct fails the rational-basis test.”).
          Furthermore, as also held by the Eleventh Circuit, I agree that, “[t]o the
    extent Lawrence rejects public morality as a legitimate government interest, it
    invalidates only those laws that target conduct that is both private and
    non-commercial”.     Williams v. Morgan, 
    478 F.3d 1316
    , 1322 (11th Cir.)
    (emphasis added), cert. denied, Williams v. King, 
    128 S. Ct. 77
     (2007). The Texas
    
    
    
                                             21
                                       06-51067
    statute regulates, inter alia, the sale of what it defines as obscene devices.
    Obviously, such conduct is both public and commercial.
          Therefore, I would hold: pursuant to the rational-basis standard of review,
    plaintiffs fail to state a substantive-due-process claim under the Fourteenth
    Amendment.
                                           III.
          For the foregoing reasons, I concur in vacating the dismissal of the First
    Amendment commercial-speech claim (advertising); the dismissal, however, of
    the Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process claim (sale) should be
    upheld.    Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from my BROTHERS’
    invalidation of the statute on that basis.
    
    
    
    
                                           22