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

An online journalist residing in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, attended several Bossier City Council meetings in 2023 to speak on a petition for term limits for city officials. At these meetings, the City Council enforced a policy governing public comment, which barred “personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks” and prohibited “boisterous” conduct. The policy was repeatedly invoked to interrupt the journalist’s remarks, and after a contentious meeting, several councilmembers met privately to discuss further restricting public comment. The journalist later filed an open meetings complaint and sued the city and individual councilmembers under federal and state law, alleging violations of the First Amendment and Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejecting all of the journalist’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the policy did not violate constitutional or statutory rights and that the conduct described did not support actionable claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the City Council’s policy was facially overbroad and unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as its prohibitions on “personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks” and “boisterous” conduct lacked clear definitions and chilled protected speech. The court also found that the policy constituted viewpoint and content discrimination, except as to the prohibition on “boisterous” conduct, which was deemed viewpoint neutral. The court determined that the journalist had plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation and an Open Meetings Law violation against certain councilmembers, but not against one councilmember or for civil penalties. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Merriott v. City of Bossier City" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl. After initially being sentenced to death, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) granted him a new sentencing trial. At the resentencing, the state introduced evidence of his affiliation with Satanism, including personal writings and expert testimony, to argue he posed a future danger. The petitioner claimed this violated his First Amendment rights. He was again sentenced to death.Following the resentencing, the petitioner’s First Amendment claim was rejected on direct appeal by the CCA, and his ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims were denied by the state habeas court. The CCA adopted the habeas court’s findings. The petitioner then pursued federal habeas relief, but the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found his claims were either procedurally defaulted or reasonably rejected by the state courts, and denied relief. The petitioner was granted a certificate of appealability on his First Amendment and IAC claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Applying the highly deferential standard mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the court concluded that the CCA’s rejection of the First Amendment claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The court distinguished the evidence admitted in this case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Dawson v. Delaware and found it was relevant to the question of future dangerousness, not just to abstract beliefs. The court further held that no relief was warranted on the IAC claims because counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable and the state habeas court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Davis v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

A company that manufactures menthol-flavored e-cigarette products applied to the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing authorization, as required under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The FDA, concerned about the appeal of non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes to minors, especially menthol varieties, evaluated whether the benefits of these products for adult smokers outweighed the risks to youth. After reviewing the evidence and applying its “comparative-efficacy standard,” which requires proof that non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes encourage more adult smokers to switch or quit compared to tobacco-flavored versions, the FDA denied the application.The petitioners challenged the FDA’s denial through a petition for review to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They raised four main arguments: that the FDA’s authority under the TCA violated the major questions and nondelegation doctrines; that the TCA’s “appropriate for the protection of the public health” (APPH) standard is unconstitutionally vague; that the FDA’s comparative-efficacy standard was an unlawfully adopted tobacco product standard; and that the FDA’s application of the APPH standard to their application was arbitrary and capricious. The petitioners also argued that the FDA improperly disregarded recent data and failed to consider their proposed marketing plan.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the FDA’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. The court held that Congress’s delegation of authority to the FDA was constitutional, the APPH standard was not unconstitutionally vague, and the comparative-efficacy standard was not a tobacco product standard requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court further found that the FDA reasonably explained its decision and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the application. The petition for review was denied. View "VDX Distro v. FDA" on Justia Law

Cheryl Roberts and William Chambers were injured in a multi-vehicle crash on Interstate 20 in Mississippi, which they allege was caused by a tractor-trailer operated by a KJ Win, Inc. employee. According to the plaintiffs, the KJ Win driver improperly parked his truck on the shoulder, forcing another truck to change lanes suddenly and triggering the collision. Roberts suffered a traumatic brain injury and other ongoing problems, while Chambers sustained a fractured sternum and other injuries. They sued KJ Win for negligence and asserted that the company was vicariously liable for its driver’s actions.After filing the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Roberts and Chambers attempted to serve KJ Win but had difficulty locating its registered agent. Ultimately, they received permission from the court to effect service through the California Secretary of State. KJ Win did not respond, and the district court entered a default judgment against it following an evidentiary hearing, awarding the plaintiffs over $2.8 million in damages. KJ Win later moved to set aside the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing lack of notice, excusable neglect, lack of prejudice to plaintiffs, existence of meritorious defenses, and interests of justice. The district court denied the motion, finding the default was willful.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of relief under Rule 60(b). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding KJ Win’s default was willful, ending the inquiry under Rule 60(b)(1). The Fifth Circuit also ruled that KJ Win forfeited its arguments regarding defective service and damages, as they were not raised before the district court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Roberts v. KJ Win" on Justia Law

Employees at a Starbucks store in Sylmar, California, engaged in union organizing activities during 2022. Several conversations between store managers and employees occurred regarding the unionization process, pay and benefit increases, and working conditions. Employees reported statements by managers suggesting that certain benefits would be paused or lost due to union negotiations, that unionization would not improve conditions, and that other jobs offered better pay. One employee, Untaran, was interrogated about his union support and subsequently terminated, with conflicting accounts regarding the reasons for his discharge.After a union election where a majority voted against representation, the union filed objections based on Untaran’s termination and management statements. An Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including coercive threats, interrogation, and unlawful discharge, and ordered remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and a new election. The NLRB adopted some findings and reversed others, particularly expanding the findings regarding coercive interrogation and threats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings and enforcement orders regarding one coercive threat against Pichardo, the threat against Untaran, and Untaran’s coercive interrogation claim, finding these supported by substantial evidence. However, the court denied enforcement for the NLRB’s order regarding Untaran’s unlawful discharge claim and the coercive threat claims involving Sosa and Ramirez, as they lacked substantial evidence. The court dismissed Starbucks’s appeal regarding the order for a second union election, citing lack of jurisdiction over representation proceedings consolidated with unfair labor practice cases. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff in Medina County, Texas, stopped a vehicle that had been reported stolen and possibly involved in an armed robbery. After detaining the driver, a seventeen-year-old named Branden Sanchez, the officer handcuffed him and placed him in the back seat of his cruiser. Over the course of approximately 50 minutes, Sanchez became disruptive, repeatedly yelling and kicking the cruiser’s doors and demanding to be taken to jail. Although surrounded by multiple officers and restrained by handcuffs and a seatbelt, Sanchez resisted orders to sit properly. In response to his continued noncompliance, the deputy forcibly repositioned Sanchez in the seat and later discharged a high-velocity pepper spray device into Sanchez’s face from a distance shorter than the manufacturer’s recommended minimum, resulting in permanent blindness in one eye.Sanchez filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The deputy moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sanchez had plausibly alleged facts showing a violation of clearly established law regarding the use of excessive force against a restrained and non-threatening suspect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The Fifth Circuit concluded that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Sanchez, he adequately alleged both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time. The court determined that precedent would have put a reasonable officer on notice that using pepper spray in this manner against a restrained, outnumbered, and non-threatening suspect was unlawful. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Sanchez v. Nunemaker" on Justia Law

A registered nurse, who is a black woman and naturalized U.S. citizen from Ghana, began working at a healthcare system in Texas and alleged frequent discrimination and harassment by co-workers, including mockery of her accent and food, derogatory comments about black employees, and preferential treatment of Filipino employees. She reported these incidents to supervisors, but claims their response was inadequate. After further complaints, she alleges retaliation through informal and formal disciplinary actions and the extension of her probation period. She was later injured in a car accident, took medical leave, and upon seeking treatment at a hospital operated by the same employer during a hurricane lockdown, had contentious interactions with staff, but ultimately received care. When she tried to return to work, she requested refresher orientation and additional training, but after further delays and lack of response, she resigned, citing discrimination and retaliation.She subsequently filed two charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The first charge, encompassing events through September 2017, was timely; the second, covering her resignation and later events, was untimely. In May 2021, she sued her employer for discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981, and disability discrimination under the ADA. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation granting summary judgment to the employer on all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed summary judgment for the employer on most claims. However, it reversed the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Title VII and Section 1981 hostile-work-environment claims, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the conduct was severe or pervasive and whether the employer’s response was adequate. The court remanded those claims for further proceedings, limiting them to facts alleged in the plaintiff’s timely EEOC charge. View "Brenyah v. Columbia Hospital" on Justia Law

Several property owners in New Braunfels, Texas, challenged a city zoning ordinance that prohibits short-term rentals in residential districts. The ordinance, originally enacted in 2006 and amended in 2011, was in place prior to the appellants’ purchase of their properties. Despite knowing about the restrictions, the appellants either engaged in or sought to engage in short-term rental activities and, after being denied zoning changes to permit such use, filed suit against the city. Their claims alleged the ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Texas Constitutions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed the appellants’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a prior decision, vacated and remanded, allowing the appellants to proceed to discovery. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court again ruled in favor of the city, granting summary judgment on all claims. The appellants then sought review of this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Texas law does not recognize a protected property interest in the right to lease one’s home on a short-term basis, which is required for a due process claim. It further found that the ordinance’s restrictions on short-term rentals survive rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause, as the city’s goal of preserving the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate government interest, and the line drawn between short-term and longer-term rentals was not arbitrary. Accordingly, the court found no constitutional violation and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Marfil v. City of New Braunfels" on Justia Law

After law enforcement arrested the defendant for unlawfully discharging a firearm, they executed a search warrant at his home. During the search, officers seized multiple firearms, suspected silencers, and other related paraphernalia. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives evaluated the items and determined the suspected silencers met the statutory definition of devices designed for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a firearm. The defendant admitted to manufacturing and possessing the silencers.A federal grand jury charged the defendant with possession of unregistered firearms, specifically silencers, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and possession of a firearm without a serial number under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that both statutes violated the Second Amendment facially and as applied to him. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied the motion, finding silencers to be “dangerous and unusual weapons” not protected by the Second Amendment. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue, and was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison and three years of supervised release.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied de novo review to the preserved constitutional questions. The court acknowledged that, per Supreme Court precedent, silencers qualify as Second Amendment “Arms.” However, in light of United States v. Peterson, 161 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that the National Firearms Act’s shall-issue regime for silencer registration is presumptively lawful unless a challenger shows it has been put toward abusive ends, such as through exorbitant fees or lengthy delays. Because the defendant did not allege such abuse, the court held that § 5861(d) did not violate his Second Amendment rights and affirmed the conviction. View "USA v. Comeaux" on Justia Law

A maintenance worker was injured when a small derrick tipped over during work on a defective transformer. Two years after the incident, the injured individual and his spouse filed suit against the derrick’s manufacturer and several corporate entities that leased the equipment to the worker’s employer. The complaint was filed on the last day permitted by the Texas statute of limitations. Plaintiffs received service citations the next day, and forwarded them to a process server three days later. Service was completed about fifty days after filing, with delays attributed to confusion over defendants’ identities and addresses, as well as disruptions caused by a courthouse fire in an unrelated case involving plaintiffs’ counsel.After defendants were served, they removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the claims against the manufacturer for insufficient diligence in service and granted summary judgment for the corporate defendants. The district court found that plaintiffs had waited too long at several points—three days before forwarding citations, several weeks before following up with the process server, and additional days before clarifying instructions—thus concluding that plaintiffs failed to exercise sufficient diligence as required by Texas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court applied a more demanding standard than Texas law requires. Under Texas law, a plaintiff must show ordinary diligence in effecting service after timely filing suit. The appellate court found that plaintiffs’ explanations for the short delays, including handling a complex service task involving multiple corporate defendants and temporary distractions from an unrelated courthouse fire, were sufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute regarding diligence. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Larkins v. S.D.P. Manufacturing" on Justia Law