
    Lynn ROWELL, doing business as Beaumont Greenery; Micah P. Cooksey; MPC Data and Communications, Incorporated; Mark Harken; NXT Properties, Incorporated; Paula Cook; Montgomery Chandler, Incorporated; Shonda Townsley; Townsley Designs, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Leslie L. PETTIJOHN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner of the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee
    No. 15-50168
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    FILED May 25, 2017
    Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Richard Lyle Coffman, Coffman Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Evan Scott Greene, Office of the Solicitor General for . the State of Texas, Maria Amelia Calaf, H. Melissa Mather, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Paul M. Sherman, Samuel B. Gedge, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae Institute for Justice.
    Richard Alan Arnold, Esq., James T. Almon, Esq., William Jay Blechman, Esq., Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL, for Amici Curiae HEB Grocery Company, L.P., Kroger Company, Walgreen Company, Albertsons, L.L.C., Safeway, Incorporated, Hy-Vee, Incorporated.
    Daniel Adam Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Consumer Action, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumers League, United States Public Interest Research Group, Tex-PIRG.
    Jonathan Jared Ihrig, Credit Union National Association, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Credit Union National Association.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

In Rowell v. Pettijohn, 816 F.3d 73 (5th Cir. 2016), our court affirmed the dismissal of appellants’ challenge to Texas’ Anti-Surcharge Law, which prohibits merchants from imposing surcharges for credit-card purchases. We held the law did not implicate the First Amendment’s free-speech protections and was not unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 82, 84.

On 29 March 2017, the Supreme Court, in a similar matter, Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1144, 197 L.Ed.2d 442 (2017), held speech was regulated and remanded to the second circuit. As a result, the Court remanded this matter to our court “for further consideration in light of Expressions Hair Design”. Rowell v. Pettijohn, No. 15-1455, - U.S -, 137 S.Ct. 1431, 197 L.Ed.2d 644 (2017).

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to district court for further proceedings consistent with Expressions Hair Design.  