Brantley v. Kuntz, No. A-13-CV-872-SS, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2013)(Sparks, J.)

Brantley holds a certificate that permits her to braid hair for compensation, but she does not hold an instructor license nor a Class A barber license; thus, while she has taught braiding, her students have been unable to use her classes to satisfy Texas’ hair-braiding licensing requirements.  Slip op. at 4.  Brantley filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas’ barber instructor licensing scheme, contending that it violates (a) the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, (b) the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and (c) the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment.  Id. at 1-2.  The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to Brantley’s equal protection and privileges or immunities claims.  Id. at 2.  She conceded that the latter claim was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872).  Slip op. at 6.  And the District Court concluded that Brantley failed to state a viable equal protection claim.  Id. at 6-9.  Therefore, the District Court dismissed all but the unchallenged due process claim.  Id. at 9.