By Katie Buehler

Law360 (May 6, 2020, 5:01 PM EDT) -- Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton admonished a Dallas County judge Wednesday for sentencing a local salon owner to jail for seven days for violating a restraining order that prohibited her from operating the salon due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Paxton called the judge's decision "another political stunt in Dallas" in a letter to Dallas County District Judge Eric Moyé. He urged the judge to reconsider his May 5 order that found S&B Hot Mess Enterprises LLC, doing business as Salon a la Mode, and owner Shelley Luther in civil and criminal contempt of court. Luther is currently in jail, and her attorney, Warren Norred of Norred Law PLLC, told Law360 Wednesday that he was seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

Paxton argued that a county that has released jail inmates to avoid the spread of coronavirus in detention facilities and that is refusing to prosecute thefts valued at less than $750 unless the evidence shows the alleged crime was for economic gain should not be sending Luther to jail. Luther's sentence will extend past May 8, the date Abbott announced salons like hers can reopen and operate at limited capacity.

"A community that released all those people, some of whom committed serious crimes, can certainly stand to release one more — a mother whose only crime was operating a small business in an effort to feed her children," Paxton wrote in the letter.

Abbott released a statement Wednesday shortly that echoed Paxton's sentiments.

"As I have made clear through prior pronouncements, jailing Texans for non-compliance with executive orders should always be the last available option," Abbott said. "Compliance with executive orders during the pandemic is important to ensure public safety; however, surely there are less restrictive means to achieving that goal than jailing a Texas mother."

Abbott's executive orders, which began closing portions of the state in mid-March, carried fines of up to $1,000 and a 180-day jail sentence for violators, and Paxton had previously vowed to use the full force of the law against violators.

Judge Moyé granted the city of Dallas' request for a restraining order against Luther and her business on April 28, ordering her to cease operations of the salon. But evidence showed that she continued to operate and to serve customers, ignoring the court's order along with local officials' requirements of maintaining a six-foot distance between people, according to the judge's May 5 order.

Along with the jail sentence, Judge Moyé ordered Luther and her salon to pay a $500 fine for each of the seven days her salon "willfully violated the order." He also ordered additional fines of $500 for each day after his May 5 order that the salon remained open through the end of the restraining order on May 7, according to court documents.

"The defiance of the court's order was open, flagrant and intentional," Judge Moyé said. "The defendants, although having been given an opportunity to do so, have expressed no contrition, remorse or regret for their contemptuous action."

Norred told Law360 in an email Wednesday that Luther was in jail because she refused to "bend her knee" to the court. He said his client had been unlawfully arrested and jailed.

"Though the rule of law is cited by the court, there exists no exception for cities to the general rule that an injunction must be supported by a bond," Norred said. "Without an enforceable injunction, no contempt can be found."

Judge Moyé's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Luther and her salon recently led a group of 11 businesses and residents in a failed petition to the Supreme Court of Texas challenging what they called "unsupportable" edicts and executive orders that city and county officials issued to limit businesses during the pandemic. The court declined to review the challenge Tuesday, finding that it should be addressed at the trial court level first.

The businesses argue that government restrictions during the pandemic violate their constitutional rights. The group also claimed that the local orders that defined essential versus nonessential businesses did so arbitrarily and without legal basis, according to the petition.

The orders further stripped business owners and employees of their livelihood without relieving debts or providing financial assistance, the businesses claimed.

"When these events first began, relators were willing to suffer along with what they believed was the rest of the commercial world," the businesses said. "When authorities differentiated between 'essential' businesses which could remain in operation, and 'non-essential' businesses which were required to close or deliver their goods only by mail order or direct delivery, inequities began to arise that defy rationality."

Asked in which districts he would file petitions on the issues presented to the state Supreme Court, Norred said: "All of them." The petition to the high court was aimed at officials in nine Texas counties, including the mayors of Dallas and San Antonio.

The city of Dallas is represented in-house by Andrew M. Gilbert.

Luther is represented by Warren V. Norred of Norred Law PLLC.

The case is City of Dallas v. S&B Hot Mess Enterprises LLC et al., case number DC-20-06131, in the 14th District Court for Dallas County, Texas.

--Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.