City of Dallas And Mack Vines v. Mica England, 846 S.W. 2D 957 (Tex. 1993) Page: 3 of 3

                                
Lr

Appendix A
policy of not hiring lesbians and gay men because they violate this criminal
statute. ... The trial court now held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined
the City of Dallas and its police chief both from enforcing the statute and from
denying employment in the police department to lesbians and gay men solely
because they violate the statute....
Background
England applied for a position with the Dallas Police Department in 1989. She
was invited to interview for the position and, when asked about her sexual ori-
entation, she responded truthfully that she was a lesbian. The interviewer then
informed England that under the police department's hiring policy her homo-
sexuality made her ineligible for employment. England sued the police depart-
ment, Vines (the police chief under whose tenure she was denied employment)
and the State, challenging the constitutionality of the hiring policy and the
criminal statute underlying the hiring policy. She also sought injunctive relief,
damages, and attorney's fees....
After granting the State's plea to the jurisdiction, the trial court granted partial
summary judgment, declaring section 21.06 of the Penal Code unconstitutional,
and enjoining the police department and its police chief from enforcing the
statute and from denying employment in the police department based solely on
an applicant's admission of violating section 21.06 or of being homosexual....
The State as sovereign is immune from suit absent its consent. E.g., Missouri
Pac. R.R. v. Brownsville Navigation Dist., 453 S.W2D 812, 813 (Tex. 1970).
However, actions of a state official that are unconstitutional, illegal, wrongful,
or beyond statutory authority are not immunized by government immunity and
a suit seeking relief from the official's conduct is not one against the state....
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.
BAEHR, ET AL. V LEWIN, 93, C.D.O.S. 3657
In this famous Hawaii case, a group of same-sex couples filed suit demanding the right
to engage in same-sex marriages. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state con-
stitution did not guarantee this right, while also pointing out that the state's ban on
same-sex marriage might be illegal, because it violated the state's constitutional protec-
tion against discrimination on the basis of sex. The court decision remained pending
while the state legislature revised the state constitution to make the court case moot. Fol-
lowing is an excerpt from the original court decision:
Background
On May 1, 1991, the plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory
relief in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, seeking, inter
341

5,