User:Taylordw/sandbox/Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle

Background
Part of the motive for the new laws came from citizens' groups such as Citizens for Morality in Media, Citizens Against Pornography, the Community Standards Coalition and Church Women United. These groups claimed that the laws were necessary to prevent the sexual abuse of children, a belief furthered by the Texas House Select Committee on Child Pornography: Its Related Causes and Control. The obscene devices provision of the law was included because supporters said that sexual devices were sometimes found in possession of those arrested for child molestation.

Reliable Consultants, et al. v. State of Texas, et al.
On 13 February 2004 Reliable Consultants, Inc. and Jennifer Rasmussen filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Lee Yeakel.

On 9 February 2006 Magistrate Judge Robert Pitman filed his Interim Report and Recommendation.

On 24 July 2006 Judge Yeakel issued his Final Judgement adopting the Report and Recommendation of Judge Pitman, dismissing the case.

Subsequent developments
The case became a minor point in the 2016 primaries when Mother Jones journalist David Corn wrote about it. U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General for the state of Texas from 2003–2008, at the time of the suit, so it was his office's responsibility to defend the law. Two days after the Mother Jones story was posted, Cruze called into WABC radio for an interview. Host Curtis Sliwa asked Senator Cruz if he becomes president whether he will "all of a sudden ban the sale of sexual toys, dildos, or anything that sexually stimulates you." Cruz replied, "Look, of course not. It’s a ridiculous question, and of course not. What people do in their own private time with theirselves [sic.] is their own business and it's none of government's business." In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart wrote, "Senator Cruz personally believes that the Texas law in question was, as [Supreme Court] Justice [Clarence] Thomas said in another context, an 'uncommonly silly' law. But the office was nevertheless duty-bound to defend the policy judgment of the Texas Legislature."
 * In 2016 election

Subsequent case law

 * Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 08-1981 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009)
 * 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover, 45 So. 3d 319, 341 (Ala. 2010)

Other related cases
Laws controlling the sale and possession of sexual devices have been tested in six states (including Texas):


 * People ex rel. Tooley v. Seven Thirty-Five East Colfax, Inc., 697 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1985) overturned Colorado's anti-vibrator statute.
 * State v. Hughes, 792 P.2d 1023 (Kan. 1990) struck down Kansas's anti-vibrator statute.
 * State v. Brenan, 772 So. 2d 64 (La. 2000) struck Louisiana's anti-vibrator law.
 * PHE, Inc. v. State, 877 So. 2d 1244 (Miss. 2004) upheld Mississippi's anti-vibrator law.
 * Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007) upheld Alabama's obscenity statute.

Virginia's statute outlawing the sale of sexual devices (§18.2-373–374) has yet to be tested in the courts.