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

Delfin LNG sought approval to construct and operate a deepwater liquefied natural gas export facility in the Gulf of America, consisting of onshore infrastructure in Louisiana and floating offshore vessels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD), after extensive environmental review and public comment, initially approved the project in 2017. Over subsequent years, Delfin altered key aspects of the project, including its design and financing. MARAD determined these changes required further review and asked Delfin to submit an amended application, which Delfin did not do. In 2025, following a presidential executive order, MARAD concluded that the modifications would not cause significantly different environmental impacts and issued the license.Three environmental organizations challenged MARAD’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued MARAD violated the Deepwater Port Act by not requiring an amended application and additional public comment, the National Environmental Policy Act by not preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement, and the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing a license after finding the prior approval was insufficient. They requested the court vacate MARAD’s licensing decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that none of the petitioners demonstrated Article III standing. The court held that the organizations failed to identify a member who suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to MARAD’s licensing decision. The declarations submitted did not show a personal and project-specific harm, nor did they establish a sufficient geographic nexus to the affected area. As a result, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits and denied the petition for review. The main holding is that, in the absence of standing, the court cannot reach the substantive environmental or procedural claims. View "Center for Bio Diversity v. TRAN" on Justia Law

A laboratory testing company, Boston Heart Diagnostics (BHD), and two rural Texas hospitals, Little River Health Care and Integrity Transitional Hospital, entered into arrangements where affiliated physicians referred blood tests to the hospitals, which then billed payors, including Medicare, at advantageous rates. The hospitals used Management Service Organizations (MSOs) as intermediaries to recruit and pay physicians, and BHD’s sales team—including several defendants—facilitated these relationships. Evidence at trial showed MSOs were used to provide kickbacks to physicians based on referral volume, disguised through sham contracts, resulting in unusually high revenues for BHD. The defendants included BHD’s CEO, vice president of sales, and sales representatives, who were involved in managing and growing these partnerships.A federal grand jury indicted eighteen individuals for conspiracy to commit illegal remunerations in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and 18 U.S.C. § 371. Five defendants proceeded to a joint jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The government presented testimony from co-conspirators and documentary evidence to show the existence of the scheme and the defendants’ knowledge and participation. The jury found all five guilty of conspiracy. The court denied post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial, sentenced the defendants, and four of them appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and other claims under deferential standards. The court affirmed all convictions, holding that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to pay illegal kickbacks to induce referrals for federally insured patients. The court also held there was sufficient evidence of a federal nexus and no error in the district court’s handling of jury notes or instructional refusals. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "USA v. Theiler" on Justia Law

A defendant pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography pursuant to a written plea agreement with the government. In exchange for the dismissal of two more serious charges—sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography—the defendant admitted guilt to the transportation offense. The plea agreement included an appellate waiver, allowing appeals only for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant confirmed in court that he understood the agreement’s terms, including the maximum penalties and mandatory restitution. At sentencing, the court imposed 240 months’ imprisonment, lifetime supervised release, and $17,500 in restitution to two victims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas accepted the defendant's guilty plea and sentenced him according to the statutory maximum and mandatory minimums outlined in the plea agreement. The court also conducted a joint change-of-plea hearing for the defendant and another individual, advising both about appellate rights. The presentence report attributed 3,092 images of child pornography to the defendant, and the court considered victim-impact statements and restitution requests before issuing its sentence. The defendant did not object to the restitution calculation at sentencing.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the defendant argued that the district court misled him regarding his appellate rights during the plea colloquy, imposed unreasonable prison and supervised release terms, and failed to properly analyze causation and apportionment for restitution as required by Paroline v. United States. The Fifth Circuit held that the appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary, barring challenges to the conviction, sentence, and restitution. The court found no plain error in the district court’s advisement or restitution calculation and affirmed the judgment. View "USA v. Quintanilla" on Justia Law

A federal employee, Robert Duran, who held a full-time union leadership position with the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), struck Tami Barrier with his vehicle while exiting a United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) station in Del Rio, Texas. Duran was leaving the station to collect pandemic-related supplies donated for CBP agents, a task requested by another union leader. The supplies were intended for distribution among multiple Border Patrol stations. Duran’s work entailed both union responsibilities and CBP overtime hours, and there was ambiguity regarding whether he was on duty at the time of the incident. Video evidence and timesheets provided conflicting accounts of his work hours, and there was dispute over whether collecting the supplies was a personal favor or part of his union duties.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment to the Government, finding that Duran was not acting within the course and scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court concluded that the errand was not a CBP task and was not performed under CBP’s authority, so the United States could not be held vicariously liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Duran was acting within the scope of his employment under Texas law, including whether he was performing a “special mission” for CBP at the time. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find Duran’s actions benefited CBP and were performed with its implied approval. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Barrier v. USA" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over a property contract concerning two adjacent restaurant parcels in Humble, Texas, formerly owned by affiliates of Landry’s, Inc. After Landry’s sold one parcel, a Reciprocal Easement Agreement was created to regulate construction and modifications on each parcel. Years later, 20100 Eastex, L.L.C. purchased the parcel previously occupied by Joe’s Crab Shack and leased it to BJ’s Brewery, which planned to demolish the existing building and construct a new one. BJ’s requested Saltgrass’s consent for the project, but Saltgrass denied approval, leading Eastex to claim that consent was deemed granted under the contract due to alleged procedural defects.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Saltgrass, finding that the Agreement required Eastex to obtain Saltgrass’s express written consent before demolition or new construction, and Eastex failed to properly request approval. Eastex appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially found Section 3.3 of the Agreement ambiguous and remanded for further factfinding. On remand, the district court considered extrinsic evidence, particularly the uncontested testimony of the drafter, and again granted summary judgment for Saltgrass.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that undisputed extrinsic evidence clarified Section 3.3, establishing that Saltgrass’s consent was required for any demolition or new construction. The court affirmed summary judgment for Saltgrass, dismissed Eastex’s appeal regarding attorney fees for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for determination of Saltgrass’s appellate attorney fees. The main holdings were: Saltgrass’s interpretation of the contract was correct; summary judgment was proper due to lack of genuine factual dispute; and Saltgrass is entitled to appellate attorney fees. View "20100 Eastex v. Saltgrass" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute enacted in 2023, which prohibits drug manufacturers and distributors from interfering with the acquisition or delivery of discounted drugs—purchased under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program—to pharmacies contracted by certain healthcare providers. The 340B Program requires drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid and Medicare to provide discounted outpatient drugs to designated healthcare providers serving low-income and rural populations. Many of these providers lack in-house pharmacies and use external contract pharmacies. In response to manufacturer-imposed limits on contract pharmacy use, Louisiana enacted Act 358 to preserve covered entities’ ability to use such pharmacies.The plaintiffs, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Attorney General, arguing that Act 358 is preempted by federal law, constitutes an unconstitutional taking, impairs contracts in violation of the Contracts Clause, and is unconstitutionally vague. The district court consolidated the cases, granted summary judgment for Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (an intervenor), and rejected all of the manufacturers’ claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law, as the federal 340B Program does not regulate drug distribution logistics or the use of contract pharmacies, and thus leaves room for state regulation. The court further concluded that Act 358 does not effect a taking under the Fifth Amendment, does not substantially impair contractual obligations under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. The Fifth Circuit thus upheld summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AbbVie v. Murrill" on Justia Law

Three individuals, each having entered the United States unlawfully more than a decade ago, were detained by federal immigration authorities after routine traffic stops in Texas. None had criminal histories, and each was a long-term resident and father of U.S. citizen children. They petitioned for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming exceptional hardship to their U.S. citizen children if removed. After being detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they filed habeas corpus petitions, asserting their detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed each petition, applying the procedural due process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge. The district courts found the mandatory detention regime unconstitutional as applied to these petitioners, ordered their immediate release, and required that any future detention must be preceded by a hearing to determine dangerousness or risk of flight. The government appealed these rulings, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases.The Fifth Circuit examined precedent, including Zadvydas v. Davis, Demore v. Kim, and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, and concluded that physical presence and long-term residence within the United States entitles aliens to due process protections. The court held that mandatory, indefinite detention of noncriminal, long-term resident aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment. The government must provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention to determine if continued detention is justified by individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk. The court affirmed the district courts’ grants of habeas corpus and clarified the scope of its decision to similar aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). View "Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The district court imposed standard and special conditions of supervised release, including substance abuse treatment and a battering intervention program. After serving his prison term, the defendant began supervised release but soon violated two conditions: refusing substance abuse treatment and threatening his probation officer. At a hearing, he admitted to these violations, and the district court revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to six months in custody and thirty months of supervised release with new conditions, including home detention and location monitoring.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued the revocation judgment, which the defendant appealed, arguing that several conditions of supervised release conflicted with the oral pronouncement at sentencing. During the appeal, his supervised release was revoked again for failing to participate in location monitoring and for not following probation officer instructions. The district court imposed a new custodial sentence and another term of supervised release with similar conditions, except for the removal of the mental health treatment requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the appeal largely moot due to the superseding revocation, except for conditions that were the basis of the second revocation. The Fifth Circuit held that only the home detention special condition and the requirement to follow probation officer instructions remained live issues and were improperly pronounced at sentencing because the defendant had not been given notice or an opportunity to object. The court vacated the judgment in part, remanded for amendment to remove those conditions, and dismissed the challenge to other conditions as moot. View "USA v. Kendall" on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased real property in Corinth, Mississippi, which previously belonged to another individual who had requested police to patrol the property and remove trespassers. After the plaintiff recorded the deed, he was found by a responding police officer at the property following a report of suspicious activity. The officer, believing the prior owner still possessed the property, questioned the plaintiff, who did not respond to ownership inquiries and attempted to move toward the house. The officer tried to detain the plaintiff, resulting in a physical encounter and the use of a taser. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. The trespass charge was dismissed after ownership was confirmed, and the other charges were conditionally retired.The plaintiff filed suit in state court against the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest and excessive force. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi and moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence raising a triable issue concerning a constitutional violation, and that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiff appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and focused on whether the plaintiff established that the officer violated clearly established law. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent or a robust consensus of analogous cases demonstrating a violation of clearly established law for either false arrest or excessive force. Finding the officer entitled to qualified immunity, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Dilworth v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Alta Power, L.L.C. sought to build peaker plants in Texas using refurbished turbines, ultimately contracting with WattStock, which collaborated with General Electric International, Inc. (GE) as a subcontractor. Alta and WattStock’s Master Agreement included a mutual waiver of consequential damages for claims “arising out of or connected in any way to” the agreement, covering both parties and their subcontractors. The turbine arrangement failed in 2020, leading to litigation among Alta, WattStock, and later GE. WattStock filed for bankruptcy and removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Alta sought consequential damages from GE, alleging tortious conduct, fraudulent inducement, and arguing the waiver did not apply to intentional torts.The district court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment to GE, holding that GE, as WattStock’s subcontractor, was an intended third-party beneficiary of the consequential-damages waiver. The court found the waiver enforceable under Texas law, even in the face of alleged fraudulent inducement, referencing Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. SPEP Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 572 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2019), and concluded that the waiver applied to all causes of action, including intentional torts. The district court dismissed all claims by Alta with prejudice, except for GE’s breach of contract claim, which was also dismissed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that GE was an intended third-party beneficiary eligible to enforce the waiver, that alleged fraudulent inducement did not render the waiver unenforceable under Texas law, and that the waiver applied to intentional tort claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of Alta’s claims against GE. View "Alta v. General Electric" on Justia Law