Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jose E. Amstutz, a police officer employed by Harris County Precinct 6, was terminated after his wife filed a police report alleging domestic abuse. Amstutz was placed on leave and later terminated following an internal investigation that found he violated several policies. Amstutz claimed his wife had a history of making false allegations and had informed his supervisors about this potential. After his termination, Amstutz struggled to find other law enforcement employment, which he attributed to the General Discharge noted in his F-5 report.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Amstutz’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for not responding to the timeliness challenge. The court also dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, finding that he had not pleaded a protected property interest in his at-will employment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the ADEA claims, agreeing that Amstutz failed to address the timeliness challenge, thus waiving opposition to that argument. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims, concluding that Amstutz did not identify any independent source of law that would create a property interest in his employment. The court found that Amstutz’s employment was at-will and that he did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment. Consequently, the court also dismissed Amstutz’s Monell claim against Harris County, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Amstutz v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Dr. Bernard T. Swift and his wife, Kathy L. Swift, took tax deductions for insurance premium payments made by Swift’s medical practice to captive insurance companies. The IRS issued notices of deficiency, disallowing the deductions and imposing penalties. The tax court upheld the IRS’s determination, finding that the payments were not genuinely for insurance.The Swifts challenged the IRS’s determination in the tax court, which sustained both the deficiencies and penalties. The tax court found that the arrangement with the captive insurance companies did not constitute insurance because it did not achieve risk distribution and did not resemble commonly accepted notions of insurance. The Swifts then appealed the tax court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the tax court’s decision, agreeing that the arrangement did not achieve risk distribution, which is essential for insurance. The court found that the number of risks insured by the captives was insufficient and that the reinsurance pools did not constitute bona fide insurance arrangements. The court also upheld the penalties, rejecting the Swifts’ arguments that the IRS failed to obtain timely supervisory approval and that they had reasonable cause or substantial authority for their tax treatment. The court concluded that the Swifts could not reasonably rely on advice from a promoter of the transaction and that the IRS letter rulings cited by the Swifts were materially distinguishable. View "Swift v. CIR" on Justia Law

Deputy Jose Nunez of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call about a possible home invasion. Upon arrival, he encountered Stephen Benavides, the homeowner’s father, at the front door. Nunez shot Benavides, who was unarmed, claiming the firearm discharged accidentally while switching hands. Benavides sued Nunez for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case. Nunez sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing the shooting was accidental. The district court denied the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the shooting was intentional or accidental. The court held that if the shooting was intentional, it would be objectively unreasonable and violate clearly established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination of a genuine factual dispute in an interlocutory appeal. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that it could only review the materiality, not the genuineness, of the factual dispute. Since Nunez’s appeal challenged the genuineness of the factual dispute, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for a jury to resolve the factual dispute and determine the issue of qualified immunity. View "Benavides v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Seville Industries, LLC, a business providing services to the oil and gas sector, applied for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company included payments to independent contractors in its payroll costs calculation, resulting in a loan amount of $2,578,351. The Small Business Administration (SBA) later reviewed Seville's loan and determined that the inclusion of independent contractor payments was incorrect, leading to a partial forgiveness of the loan amount.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reviewed Seville's appeal against the SBA's decision. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SBA, upholding the decision to deny full loan forgiveness based on the inclusion of independent contractor payments in the payroll costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the CARES Act's definition of "payroll costs" does not include payments made to independent contractors by businesses. The court emphasized that the statutory text and structure clearly distinguish between payroll costs for employees and income for independent contractors or sole proprietors. The court also rejected Seville's claims that the SBA's interim final rule changed the meaning of "payroll costs" and that the SBA should be equitably estopped from denying full forgiveness. The court concluded that Seville was not entitled to include payments to independent contractors in its payroll costs calculation for PPP loan forgiveness. View "Seville Industries v. SBA" on Justia Law

In this case, the families of Michael Jackson, Carl Wiley, Jr., and Rashad Henderson, who were killed during high-speed police chases in Houston, Texas, sued the City of Houston. They alleged that the Houston Police Department (HPD) has a policy of racial profiling that leads to more high-speed chases in predominantly black neighborhoods, resulting in the deaths of their loved ones. The plaintiffs brought several federal municipal liability claims, including violations of equal protection, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and substantive due process, as well as state tort claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part Houston's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings. The court dismissed all claims except the equal protection claims and Jackson’s state law claims. Houston then filed an interlocutory appeal, raising issues regarding standing, failure to state federal claims, capacity to sue, and governmental immunity for Jackson’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final district court orders except under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court found that it could only review whether the plaintiffs had standing to assert their equal protection claims. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their injuries did not stem from unequal treatment based on race. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s order regarding standing for the equal protection claims and vacated the district court’s decision on governmental immunity for Jackson’s negligence claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

In November 2023, Media Matters for America, a nonprofit organization, published articles critical of X Corp. and its CEO, Elon Musk, alleging that advertisements from popular brands were placed next to harmful content on the X platform. This led to significant losses for X as advertisers withdrew. X sued Media Matters and its employees in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging interference with contract, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. Media Matters moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, but the district court denied the motion. Media Matters then sought to certify the personal jurisdiction question for immediate appeal, which was also denied.The district court denied Media Matters' subsequent motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, citing untimeliness and a pattern of gamesmanship. Media Matters then filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking a venue transfer based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the petition and found that the district court had not properly considered the eight public- and private-interest factors required for a venue transfer analysis. The appellate court granted Media Matters' petition in part, vacated the district court's order denying the transfer, and remanded the case for a proper venue analysis. The court also held Media Matters' interlocutory appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of the remand. View "In Re: Media Matters for America" on Justia Law

John Gilchrist and Byron Brockman sued their former employer, Schlumberger Technology Corp., for failing to pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They worked as Measurements While Drilling Field Specialists (MWDs), providing essential data to Schlumberger's clients for drilling operations. Their duties included monitoring drilling data, ensuring data quality, and advising clients on drilling operations. Both earned over $200,000 annually but were not paid overtime.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and found that Schlumberger failed to prove that Gilchrist and Brockman were exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements under the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) exemption. The court determined that their duties did not qualify as administrative or executive tasks that would exempt them from overtime pay. Schlumberger appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Gilchrist and Brockman qualified as highly compensated employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirement because they performed administrative duties, specifically quality control and advisory roles, which are directly related to the management or general business operations of Schlumberger's clients. The court noted that the MWDs' tasks were performed customarily and regularly, meeting the criteria for the HCE exemption. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims for overtime pay. View "Gilchrist v. Schlumberger" on Justia Law

Joseph Terrell Goody, a documented gang member with a lengthy criminal history, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. His criminal record includes convictions for cocaine possession, robbery, assault, deadly conduct, evading arrest, and burglary. On September 26, 2020, Goody was pulled over for traffic violations, and officers found cocaine, methamphetamine, and a suspicious guitar case in his car. The case contained a loaded rifle. Goody was arrested and later pleaded guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced Goody to 57 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release, with a special condition prohibiting him from associating with gang members. Goody appealed his conviction and the supervised-release condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Goody raised three arguments on appeal: the facial unconstitutionality of the felon-in-possession ban under the Second Amendment, a violation of the equal protection principle under the Fifth Amendment, and the vagueness of the supervised-release condition. The court rejected all three arguments. It upheld the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession ban, found no merit in the equal protection claim, and determined that the supervised-release condition was not plainly erroneous. The court noted that similar conditions have been routinely imposed and upheld by other courts. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Goody" on Justia Law

A Texas statute, Senate Bill 315, prohibits individuals under 21 from working at sexually oriented businesses (SOBs) to prevent sex trafficking and sexual exploitation. Plaintiffs, including the Texas Entertainment Association and several adult cabarets and bookstores, challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 315 under the First Amendment, suing the Texas Attorney General and the Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and upheld the statute as constitutional. The court found that Texas enacted S.B. 315 with the reasonable belief that it would curb sex trafficking and that the law was sufficiently tailored to that end. The court applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding that the statute furthered the state's interest in reducing sex trafficking and did not restrict substantially more speech than necessary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate. The court found that S.B. 315 was designed to serve a substantial governmental interest by providing evidence linking SOBs to sex trafficking and sex crimes. The court also determined that the statute allowed for reasonable alternative avenues of communication, as it did not significantly restrict the expressive conduct of SOBs or their employees. The court concluded that S.B. 315 was not overbroad, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the statute prohibited or chilled a substantial amount of protected speech. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that S.B. 315 is constitutional under the First Amendment. View "Ass’n of Club Executives v. Paxton" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), challenged the University of Texas at Austin (UT) for its admissions policies, alleging they violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by considering race as a factor. After the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, UT revised its admissions policy to exclude race as a factor but allowed admissions officers access to applicants' racial data. SFFA claimed this access still constituted a violation and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed all claims as moot, reasoning that UT's policy changes addressed the issues raised by SFFA. The district court concluded that the claims related to the old policy were moot and that the new policy did not violate the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that claims related to UT's pre-Harvard policy were moot because the policy had been repealed and could not reasonably be expected to recur. However, the court found that claims related to UT's post-Harvard policy were not moot. The court noted that admissions officers' access to racial data could still potentially allow for racial discrimination, thus maintaining a live controversy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that SFFA's claims regarding the revised admissions policy remained live and required further examination to determine if the policy was a subterfuge for continued race discrimination. View "Students for Fair Admissions v. University of Texas Austin" on Justia Law