In a Dallas courtroom this week, proponents of prolonged business closures were confronted by an important reality: People need to make a living.
That was, in essence, Shelley Luther’s legal defense — a defense the Dallas salon owner was forced to make after she reopened her hair salon in defiance of a county judge’s cease-and-desist letter. “I have no choice,” Luther said as she took the stand. “I need to feed my family, and my stylists could not feed their families.”
Luther’s defense meant very little to the Dallas city attorneys, who argued that Luther’s illegal actions (which include publicly destroying Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins’s temporary restraining order during a protest last week) outweighed the circumstances that drove her to commit them.
Luther’s defense meant even less to Dallas Civil District Judge Eric Moyé, who sentenced Luther to seven days in jail and handed her a fine totaling $7,000. “The rule of law governs us,” Moyé told Luther in court. “People cannot take it upon themselves to determine what they will and will not do.”
We are indeed subject to the rule of law and the individual policies our elected leaders pass. But the rule of law exists to preserve the natural rights of each human being, including the rights to life and property, and thus the right to work. So, what are we to do when our laws no longer respect or protect our natural rights? The answer was quite simple, according to Luther. She decided to get back to work.
“I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids,” Luther told Moyé. “So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I am not going to shut the salon.”
Luther’s case has rightfully attracted attention from those who would like to see the full rights of Texans restored. The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, urged Moyé to order Luther’s release, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, noting that there are far better ways to encourage compliance with social distancing restrictions than needlessly jailing a Texas mother.
Luther’s critics have pointed out that she recently received a small business loan from the federal government. They’ve also noted that Abbott’s reopening plan allows salons such as hers to reopen lawfully this week, so had she waited just two weeks, she could have avoided this mess entirely. But at the time Luther reopened, Abbott had not yet introduced his reopening plan, so there was no clear expiration date she could look toward. And as any small business owner knows, a few thousand bucks from the government only goes so far.
Luther, like the vast majority of people in the United States, willingly closed her business when there was a legitimate reason to do so. Now that the healthcare system is stable and the reopening process has begun, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify prolonging a lockdown that seems to have served its purpose.
Many people simply cannot afford to put their day-to-day lives on hold indefinitely. They should not be punished for seeking the restoration of their rights. The loss of one’s livelihood is not a minor inconvenience, and it should not be treated as such. Luther deserves to walk free, and then, she should get back to work.
