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

Several Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York, were the site of intense union organizing activity between August 2021 and July 2022, led by Workers United. After the Union launched its campaign, Starbucks responded with a series of actions: dispatching senior executives and support managers to Buffalo, implementing fast-tracked renovations, soliciting employee grievances, offering benefits and promotions, strictly enforcing workplace policies, and terminating several employees, many of whom were union supporters. The Union won certification at eight stores but lost the vote at the Camp Road location, leading to allegations that Starbucks’s conduct affected the fairness of the election.The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel investigated, resulting in consolidated complaints. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Starbucks violated sections 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and sustained the Union’s objections to the Camp Road election. The NLRB issued an extensive order adopting the ALJ’s findings, concluding that Starbucks engaged in unlawful surveillance, coercive interrogation, solicited grievances, promised and granted benefits, threatened employees, changed policies and fired employees without bargaining, closed the Galleria kiosk discriminatorily, and disciplined union supporters. Remedies included a bargaining order at Camp Road, reopening the Galleria kiosk, compensating employees for pecuniary harm, and requiring a public notice reading.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying a deferential standard to the Board’s factual findings and reviewing legal conclusions de novo, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement as to one finding of unlawful surveillance, the sole findings of unlawful interrogation and coercive threats, remanding those portions. It granted enforcement for the Board’s findings under sections 8(a)(3), (4), and (5). The court denied enforcement of the consequential damages remedy and reopening the Galleria kiosk, but enforced the bargaining order at Camp Road and the public notice-reading requirement. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Lucid USA, Inc., which manufactures and sells electric vehicles, sought to sell its vehicles directly to consumers in Texas through its own retail studio. However, Texas law prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers and their affiliates from directly selling vehicles to consumers, instead requiring sales to occur through independent franchised dealers. In 2021, after the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles notified Lucid that it could not sell vehicles at its Plano studio due to this prohibition, Lucid filed suit against officials of the Department, alleging that the law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas Automobile Dealers Association intervened as a defendant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled against Lucid. The district court concluded that the Texas prohibition was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and, therefore, did not violate either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses. Lucid appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. Relying on its previous decisions in Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Department of Transportation, International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, and Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, the Fifth Circuit found those precedents controlling. The court held that the Texas law survives rational basis review because the legislature has a legitimate interest in curtailing vertical integration and preventing monopolistic practices in the automobile market. The court rejected Lucid’s arguments that its as-applied challenge was distinct from the facial challenges previously considered. The court also found that Lucid's substantive due process claim fails for the same reasons. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Lucid Group USA v. Johnston" on Justia Law

The petitioner is a Nigerian citizen who entered the United States on a business visa in 2004 and overstayed after the visa’s expiration in 2005. Following charges of deportability in 2007, he conceded removability in 2008. In 2012, he sought cancellation of removal and also applied for special cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act, citing his current wife’s medical issues and financial challenges, as well as abuse endured from his former wife. At a merits hearing in 2021, the petitioner, his family, and a psychologist testified regarding his eligibility for relief.An Immigration Judge (IJ) reviewed the evidence and denied both cancellation and special cancellation of removal. The IJ found that the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements for either form of relief, including the necessary showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative and sufficient evidence of battery or extreme cruelty. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision in full, explicitly referencing Matter of Burbano to preserve the IJ’s findings for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision, applying a substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s hardship and battery/cruelty determinations, consistent with recent Supreme Court precedent. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the BIA did not err in summarily affirming the IJ’s order and that substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of relief. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or battery/extreme cruelty sufficient to warrant cancellation or special cancellation of removal. The petition for review was denied. View "Okene v. Blanche" on Justia Law

In 2022, a Starbucks store in Wichita, Kansas, was the site of unionization discussions. The store manager, Carmella Neri, and assistant manager, Lauren Jacobs, made various statements to employees about union organizing, benefit changes, store hour reductions, and hiring practices. Employees testified that Neri referenced union activity during routine performance meetings, specifically suggesting that certain benefits might not be guaranteed if employees chose to unionize. Jacobs explained to an employee that the hiring portal was closed due to difficulties in discussing union matters with prospective hires. Additionally, Neri responded to an inquiry about reduced store hours by attributing the change to union-related pressures.After a failed union election, the union filed charges against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including threats of loss of benefits, creating an impression of surveillance, and linking adverse employment actions to union activity. An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and found Starbucks in violation on all claims. Starbucks challenged these findings before the NLRB, which largely adopted the ALJ’s conclusions but issued a narrower remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court granted enforcement of the NLRB’s decision as to the finding that Neri’s statements to employee Cuellar-Serafini about loss of benefits constituted an unlawful threat of reprisal. However, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement regarding the findings on store hours reductions, hiring portal closure, and impression of surveillance, holding that these determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, only the threat of loss of benefits claim was upheld. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Michael Ramirez purchased a house in Texas City, Texas, intending to remodel and resell it. After a fire caused substantial but repairable damage, the City declared the property substandard and, following an inspection, determined it posed a clear and imminent danger. The City sent notice to Ramirez, halted the permit process pending an engineer’s report (which Ramirez never obtained), and the house remained unrepaired for over a year, with Ramirez storing valuable personal property inside. In May 2023, the City demolished the house without further notice. Ramirez then sued, claiming violations of state and federal constitutional rights, including procedural due process and takings, and sought damages for the house, expected profits, personal property, and attorney’s fees.Upon removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ramirez repeatedly requested a jury trial in various filings. The parties signed a joint case management plan acknowledging a jury demand. The district court initially scheduled a jury trial but, shortly before trial, ordered a bench trial instead, finding the jury demand procedurally deficient. After the bench trial, the court held the City had violated Ramirez’s procedural due process rights but justified the demolition under nuisance abatement, awarding only nominal damages and denying attorney’s fees as Ramirez was not considered the prevailing party.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on the denial of a jury trial and damages determinations. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Ramirez’s Rule 39(b) motion for a jury trial, as there were no strong or compelling reasons to do so and Ramirez’s repeated demands were sufficient. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including a jury trial and reconsideration of damages and fees. View "Ramirez v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

Several lieutenants and captains employed by the Harris County Sheriff’s Office alleged that Harris County violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to properly pay them overtime. These employees, who worked in either law enforcement or the county jail system, claimed that their primary duties were frontline law enforcement or correctional work. Harris County, however, argued that these plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s administrative and executive exemptions, as their main responsibilities involved management and administrative oversight rather than frontline duties.The litigation began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in part for Harris County, finding that all captains and criminal justice lieutenants were administratively exempt, but concluded there were factual disputes regarding whether law enforcement patrol and investigative lieutenants were exempt. Those claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that the remaining lieutenants were also exempt as administrative and executive employees. The plaintiffs then moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, raising arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged errors in the jury charge, and an asserted inconsistency in the verdict. The magistrate judge denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims. The court held that Harris County met its burden of proving that all plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis and that the criminal justice lieutenants qualified for the administrative exemption. The panel further found no error in the jury instructions or in allowing the jury to find both exemptions applied. The court also ruled that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial. Thus, the judgment in favor of Harris County was affirmed. View "Moreau v. Harris County" on Justia Law

A juvenile was charged with two counts of possession or transfer of machinegun conversion devices, known as Glock switches, which enable semiautomatic pistols to fire automatically. The charges were brought under federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2), after the government certified that the State of Mississippi lacked jurisdiction over the alleged conduct because, at the time, Mississippi did not have a law regulating possession or transfer of machineguns. The juvenile moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the certification was inadequate and that the statute violated the Second Amendment, but both motions were denied.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi reviewed the case. After the motions were denied, the juvenile admitted to the charges, waiving appeal rights for all non-jurisdictional issues except his Second Amendment challenge. The district court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed a 19-month term of detention followed by supervised release until age 21.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether the statute violated the Second Amendment, and whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms exceeded its authority in classifying Glock switches as machineguns. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction because Mississippi lacked applicable law at the relevant time, the Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Wilson, 164 F.4th 380 (5th Cir. 2026), which upheld § 922(o) as constitutional, and the statutory challenge regarding ATF’s authority was waived under the terms of the appeal waiver. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Juvenile" on Justia Law

Transportation Consultants, Inc. owned property in Louisiana insured under a surplus lines commercial property policy issued by a group of domestic and foreign insurers. The policy contained an arbitration clause and a provision stating it should be construed as separate contracts between the insured and each underwriter. Following Hurricane Ida, a dispute arose regarding coverage, prompting Transportation Consultants to file suit against all insurers in Louisiana state court.The insurers removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, relying on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards to assert federal jurisdiction. The district court initially granted the insurers' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation. After the Louisiana Supreme Court decided Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The district court then reversed its earlier decision as to the domestic insurers, finding that Louisiana law prohibits arbitration clauses in insurance contracts between Louisiana parties, and lifted the stay as to the domestic insurers. The order compelling arbitration and staying litigation against the foreign insurers remained.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, following its precedent in Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co. and Crescent City Surgical Operating Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., the arbitration clauses in contracts with the domestic insurers are unenforceable under Louisiana law and equitable estoppel cannot be used to compel arbitration. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of arbitration as to the domestic insurers but vacated the lifting of the stay. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider, in light of updated precedent and additional briefing, whether litigation against the domestic insurers should be stayed pending completion of arbitration with the foreign insurers. View "Transportation Conslt v. Certain Undwr" on Justia Law

Two police officers, Eric Bruss and Wayne Schultz, arrived at the scene of an active arrest where another officer, Robert Johnson, was already present and handling two suspects. The situation was tense: dispatch had reported a weapon, and one suspect, Kerry Thomas, repeatedly acted erratically and made statements suggesting he wanted to be killed. Johnson, a canine handler, released his police dog on Thomas after repeated warnings, resulting in a 43-second bite while Johnson handcuffed Thomas. Bruss and Schultz, who arrived after the scene had escalated, did not intervene during the dog bite.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied qualified immunity to Bruss and Schultz at both the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages. The district court determined there were genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the bystander officers had a reasonable opportunity to intervene and concluded that the law was clearly established regarding bystander liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to prevent the use of excessive force.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that, under the specific facts presented—including the short duration of the dog bite, the officers’ late arrival, and absence of direct participation or encouragement—existing precedent did not clearly establish that Bruss and Schultz had a constitutional duty to intervene during an active canine-assisted apprehension. The court emphasized that no controlling or analogous case law put the constitutional question “beyond debate” for reasonable officers in these circumstances. As a result, the Fifth Circuit rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Bruss and Schultz on qualified immunity grounds. View "Thomas v. Bruss" on Justia Law

Jonathan M. Tampico was convicted in 1999 of possession, receipt, and distribution of child pornography, receiving concurrent sentences totaling 360 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a $5,000 fine. After beginning his supervised release in March 2024, the district court modified the conditions of his release in October 2024 to include home detention for six months, with the possibility of continuation until he completed a sex offender treatment program. The court also found that $1,992.86 in interest had accrued on his fine and ordered monthly payments of $200.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas had not included home detention as a condition of supervised release when Tampico was originally sentenced or resentenced. In 2024, after evidentiary hearings, the district court modified the conditions in response to concerns about Tampico’s progress in treatment. Tampico objected to the location monitoring and home detention but did not appeal the initial March 2024 order. He also contested the October 2024 findings regarding interest on his fine, arguing that no interest was required and that the fine had been fully paid, relying on Bureau of Prisons records showing a zero balance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The court held that the district court did not impose an illegal sentence by modifying supervised release conditions to include home detention, finding that the statutory maximums applicable to imprisonment were not implicated because home detention was added as a modification during supervised release, not at sentencing or after revocation. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s finding that interest on the fine was due and that the Government was not estopped from collecting it. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Tampico" on Justia Law