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

In early 2023, James Kirkwood committed a series of robberies, including one at a Dollar Tree store in San Antonio, Texas. During this incident, he threatened a 71-year-old cashier by implying he had a gun and demanded cash. The cashier, believing the threat, called her manager, who gave Kirkwood $260. Three days later, Kirkwood was apprehended after robbing another Dollar Tree. He was subsequently charged under a federal robbery statute and pled guilty. The cashier, A.C., quit her job on the day of the robbery, citing ongoing psychological distress, and later took a lower-paying job as a dishwasher. She reported no physical injuries but claimed lost income and damages due to psychological harm.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced Kirkwood and, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), ordered him to pay restitution to A.C. for both her alleged mental anguish and lost income. The district court acknowledged uncertainty in the law but proceeded, suggesting the issue could be resolved on appeal. Kirkwood’s counsel objected to the lost-income calculation but did not specifically object to the restitution for mental anguish. Kirkwood appealed the restitution order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the statutory basis for awarding restitution under the MVRA. The court held that the MVRA does not authorize restitution for purely psychological harm or for lost income unaccompanied by bodily injury. The court found no statutory provision allowing restitution for mental anguish alone and determined that lost income is compensable only when it results from bodily injury. The Fifth Circuit therefore vacated the restitution award to A.C. View "USA v. Kirkwood" on Justia Law

A fire captain who served as vice president of a local firefighters’ union was also a member of the Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Board. The union previously paid for legal counsel for members appearing before the Civil Service Board, but stopped doing so after the Louisiana Board of Ethics issued an advisory opinion, and later a binding declaratory opinion, stating that such payments violated Louisiana law while any union officer served on the board. The union challenged the Board of Ethics’ interpretation in state court, arguing that it misapplied state law, and then filed a federal lawsuit claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the union a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds, preventing enforcement of the ethics board’s opinion against the union. The district court also declined to abstain under the doctrines established in Younger v. Harris and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The Louisiana defendants appealed, arguing the district court should have abstained and that granting the injunction was an abuse of discretion. While the appeal was pending, all relevant state court proceedings concluded, and, just before oral argument, the fire captain resigned from the Civil Service Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the case was moot due to the resignation, as neither party retained a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The court determined that no live controversy remained, rejected arguments that mootness exceptions applied, and ruled that the appeal and the entire case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 v. Roberts" on Justia Law

A city councilwoman in Godley, Texas, was arrested by police minutes before a city council meeting for allegedly tampering with a government record, specifically, a meeting agenda she believed should have included additional items. The arrest occurred after the councilwoman, who was a vocal critic of the mayor and police chief, edited a courtesy copy of the agenda forwarded by the city secretary and returned it with instructions to post the updated version. The tension between the councilwoman and city officials was rooted in prior disputes over city governance and alleged retaliation for her speech. After her arrest, which left the council deadlocked, the mayor used his tiebreaking vote to secure his preferred appointees. The county attorney subsequently declined to prosecute the alleged crime.Reviewing the case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against various city officials and the City itself. The district court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, concluding that the facts did not support constitutional violations, and declined to allow discovery against the City.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment false arrest claims against Officers Arbuthnot and Templer, First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims against all individual defendants, and Monell claims against the City for municipal liability. The court also remanded a fabrication claim for further consideration. However, it affirmed dismissal of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the mayor and interim chief. The court remanded the surviving claims for further proceedings. View "Thompson v. McGehee" on Justia Law

With Purpose, Inc., a financial technology start-up, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February 2023. Prior to the bankruptcy, With Purpose, Inc. and the Ayers parties, who included a co-founder and early investors, were engaged in arbitration with claims and counterclaims involving both With Purpose, Inc. and Toby Neugebauer, another co-founder. When the bankruptcy was filed, the Ayers parties ceased pursuing claims against the debtor in line with the automatic stay, but continued to pursue claims—including seeking depositions and filing supplemental claims—against Neugebauer. Neugebauer failed to appear for several depositions and ultimately sought relief in bankruptcy court to enforce the automatic stay.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the Ayers parties had willfully violated the automatic stay by pursuing certain claims and depositions against Neugebauer, specifically a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim belonging to the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court awarded Neugebauer actual damages, including attorneys’ fees. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings, rejecting arguments that Neugebauer lacked prudential standing, that the violation was not willful, and that the damages award was excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Neugebauer, as a creditor, had standing to enforce the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) and Fifth Circuit precedent. The court concluded that the Ayers parties willfully violated the automatic stay by pursuing estate property claims and depositions against Neugebauer. It further determined that the award of actual damages, including attorneys’ fees, was not clearly erroneous. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts. View "Ayers v. Neugebauer" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in Texas state court in 2004 for assault causing bodily injury to a family member, which qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under Texas law. The incident involved the defendant pushing his wife during an argument and, when she attempted to call 911, striking her in the face while trying to knock the phone from her hand. Based on this conviction, he was later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.Before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, raising two constitutional challenges: that the statute exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, and that, as applied to him, it violates the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It rejected the Commerce Clause challenge, extending the reasoning from United States v. Alcantar to § 922(g)(9). The court then addressed the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, applying the historical tradition test articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and clarified in United States v. Rahimi. The Fifth Circuit concluded that § 922(g)(9), as applied to the defendant, is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals found to threaten the physical safety of others. The court found that the statute’s rationale and burden are supported by historical analogues and that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently dangerous to warrant disarmament. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Allred" on Justia Law

In this case, two plaintiffs sued a New Orleans police officer and the City of New Orleans after the officer shot and killed their 16-week-old puppy, Apollo, while responding to a domestic disturbance call. The officer entered the plaintiffs’ yard, encountered Apollo, and fired three shots, resulting in the puppy’s death. The plaintiffs alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and brought several state-law claims against the officer, the City, and the police superintendent.Prior to trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding factual disputes that precluded resolution at that stage. After additional motions and pretrial discussions, the case proceeded to trial. The jury found the officer had acted in an objectively unreasonable manner and harmed the plaintiffs, but also found him entitled to qualified immunity. Regarding the City, the jury returned inconsistent findings: it found the City’s policies did not cause Apollo’s death, yet determined the City was liable for violating the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment for the officer and the City on the constitutional claims, but for the plaintiffs on state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court properly submitted the fact-bound qualified immunity question to the jury after instructing it on the clearly established law, consistent with circuit precedent. However, the court found the jury’s verdict against the City was internally inconsistent—municipal liability requires both culpability and causation, and the jury’s answers could not be reconciled. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the judgment for the officer, reversed the judgment for the City, and remanded for a new trial on municipal liability. View "Brown v. Burmaster" on Justia Law

This case involved a decades-long school desegregation lawsuit in which, after more than sixty years of litigation, all remaining parties—the United States, Delta Charter Group, and the School Board of Concordia Parish—filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Previously, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana had dismissed the long-absent private plaintiffs in 2025. The key fact is that every party with an ongoing interest in the case agreed to end the litigation through this self-executing mechanism.Despite the jointly filed stipulation, the district court issued a memorandum ruling refusing to recognize the dismissal, reasoning that it was not required to accept and enter the proposed stipulation, particularly when public policy concerns or the protection of others might be implicated. The court then scheduled evidentiary hearings to determine if the school system had achieved “unitary status,” referencing the Green factors from Green v. School Board of New Kent County. In response, the School Board appealed the district court’s orders and, as a precaution, also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the School Board’s direct appeal because the challenged orders were neither final decisions nor appealable injunctions. However, the Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief, ruling that once a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal is filed by all appearing parties, the case is immediately dismissed without need for a court order. Any further action by the district court is a nullity. The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to vacate its orders and end the proceedings. View "In Re: School Board of Concordia Parish" on Justia Law

In June 2023, the defendant was arrested for selling a substantial quantity of methamphetamine to a government informant in two separate transactions, leading to a two-count federal indictment for drug trafficking offenses. Before pleading guilty to one count (with the other dismissed as part of a plea agreement), the defendant successfully petitioned a Mississippi state court to expunge a 2006 felony marijuana conviction. The expungement order, granted without a hearing or any findings of rehabilitation, restored the defendant to his pre-arrest legal status but preserved certain nonpublic records and did not address potential use in later proceedings.During sentencing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the presentence report included the expunged marijuana conviction in the defendant’s criminal history, resulting in a higher offense level and a calculated guideline range of 262 to 327 months. The defendant objected, arguing the expunged conviction should not count. The district court overruled this objection, finding the expungement did not meet federal Sentencing Guidelines criteria, particularly as it was not based on innocence or legal error, and was instead a mechanism to restore civil rights. The court also questioned the circumstances of the expungement but ultimately imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 180 months, stating it would have imposed the same sentence even if the prior conviction had not been counted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly included the expunged conviction in the criminal history calculation. The Fifth Circuit clarified that, under the Sentencing Guidelines, only convictions expunged due to innocence or legal error are excluded; expungements granted for other reasons, such as restoring civil rights, must be counted. The court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Payne" on Justia Law

A Louisiana limited liability company (LLC) with a sole member voluntarily dissolved in April 2024 and subsequently had its Texas registration terminated in May 2024. Prior to dissolution, the LLC had developed a bid strategy for certain oilfield assets and shared confidential information with a bank to seek financing. The assets were ultimately acquired by a different bidder, also financed by the same bank, and the LLC alleged that its confidential information was improperly conveyed to the winning bidder. After dissolution, the LLC initiated a lawsuit in July 2024 against the bank and the winning bidder, asserting trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the LLC lacked capacity to sue due to its prior dissolution. The LLC did not contest its lack of capacity but requested a stay while it sought reinstatement in Louisiana state court. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for lack of capacity, denied the LLC’s request for a stay, and denied the defendants’ request to seek attorneys’ fees. The court also sealed various filings relating to the mental health of the LLC’s sole member.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings, holding that under Texas law, an entity dissolved prior to suit lacks capacity to file suit, and that Louisiana law does not permit retroactive reinstatement of an LLC dissolved by affidavit to pursue claims known before dissolution but filed after. The Fifth Circuit denied the LLC’s request to certify a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court and affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees. However, it vacated the district court’s sealing order, remanding for proper balancing of the public’s right of access to court records, as required by precedent. View "Juneau Group v. Vendera Management" on Justia Law

Five individuals residing near a New Orleans hospital brought suit after the hospital moved its helicopter landing pad from a one-story building near the Mississippi River to the top of a new tower in the center of the hospital complex. The plaintiffs, claiming that the new helipad created excessive noise and vibrations, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the hospital to relocate the helipad or otherwise abate the disturbance, as well as damages for nuisance and negligence.The defendants removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request to remand the case to state court, finding that their subsequent removal of class-action allegations and request to decline supplemental jurisdiction amounted to improper forum shopping. The district court then granted the defendants partial summary judgment, holding that Federal Aviation Administration regulations preempted any permanent injunction to relocate the helipad. The court also dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, but allowed their claims for general nuisance damages to proceed to trial. Before trial, the plaintiffs appealed the order, seeking review of the denial of their request for an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because the district court’s order did not explicitly deny an injunction and, even if it had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief, the plaintiffs did not show that they satisfied the requirements for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Carson v. American Brands, Inc. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Rey v. LCMC Health Care Partners" on Justia Law