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

In this case, the petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death following a 2003 armed robbery in Houston, Texas, during which a restaurant employee was killed. Key evidence included eyewitness testimony, statements from co-defendants and jailhouse informants, and information about the petitioner’s criminal history and conduct in prison. The prosecution’s case centered on the petitioner being the sole gunman, though there was conflicting testimony about whether a second person entered the restaurant.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied state habeas relief, finding the petitioner’s subsequent and additional habeas claims to be procedurally barred as an abuse of the writ. The petitioner then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, raising thirteen claims, including allegations of false evidence, inconsistent prosecutorial theories, Brady violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and racial bias. The district court denied relief on the merits where permitted and found the remaining claims procedurally barred due to default under Texas law, ruling that the petitioner had not shown cause, actual prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse the default.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue for the claims dismissed as procedurally barred. The court held that the petitioner failed to show that jurists of reason could debate the district court’s procedural rulings. The court concluded that the claims were subject to an adequate and independent state procedural bar, and the petitioner had not demonstrated cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome that bar. The Fifth Circuit therefore denied the application for a certificate of appealability. View "Marshall v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including a federally licensed firearm dealer in Texas and two law-abiding residents of Arizona and New Mexico, challenged federal statutes that prohibit the direct sale and transfer of handguns across state lines. The statutes in question, collectively called the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban, make it unlawful for unlicensed persons to buy or sell handguns to residents of other states and restrict licensed dealers from directly selling handguns to nonresidents, subject to limited exceptions. While a workaround exists—requiring transfers through an intermediary licensed dealer in the buyer’s home state—this process is not automatic, incurs additional fees, and results in delays. The plaintiffs argued that, but for the Ban, they would engage in interstate handgun sales and purchases.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. With no disputed facts, the court determined the issue was purely a question of law: whether the Ban violates the Second Amendment. The district court upheld the Ban, granting the government’s motion and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Applying the framework from N.Y. State Pistol & Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen, the court found that the Ban implicates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional. The government failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition to justify the Ban. The Fifth Circuit held that the Ban is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation under the Second Amendment, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. View "Elite Precision v. ATF" on Justia Law

A police officer at a university was disciplined after corroborating a fellow officer’s allegations of sexual misconduct during a Title IX investigation. He had encouraged the officer to report the misconduct but did not report it himself. After participating in the investigation, he experienced several incidents he believed were retaliatory, including changes to his work routine and being denied promotion opportunities. He later recorded a conversation between his department chief and assistant chief, believing it would provide evidence of retaliation. The chief suspended him for the recording and initiated an investigation conducted by police chiefs from other schools, which resulted in a recommendation that he be fired and dishonorably discharged. Before the termination could take place, he resigned but was still given a dishonorable discharge. He filed a complaint with the EEOC, received a right to sue letter, and brought a Title VII retaliation claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment to the university, finding that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for retaliation. The court held that he did not suffer an adverse employment action and that there was no causal link between his participation in the Title IX investigation and any adverse action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation concerning his suspension and the investigation into the phone recording, but not for the dishonorable discharge, as that decision was made by an independent panel with no knowledge of his protected activity. The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the rationale for the suspension and investigation was pretextual. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Crawford v. West Texas A&M" on Justia Law

A university professor in Oxford, Mississippi sought to host a nighttime art exhibition on the grounds of the local courthouse, which is frequently used by the public for varied activities, including political protests and social gatherings. The county had implemented a Facility Use Policy requiring permits for use of courthouse grounds, including a ban on nighttime events, advance notice, security fees, insurance, and granting discretionary authority to deny permits based on the nature of the event. The professor’s permit request was denied due to the curfew provision, prompting him to file suit alleging violations of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi held a bench trial and permanently enjoined enforcement of the curfew provision against the professor, finding it an unreasonable restriction on speech. However, the court dismissed the professor’s other claims for lack of standing, concluding he had not suffered sufficient injury to challenge the remaining policy provisions or to bring a vagueness challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the injunction against the curfew provision, holding that the ban was not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and burdened more speech than necessary. The court rejected the county’s argument that subsequent policy amendments mooted the case, finding the amended curfew provision still posed the same fundamental issues. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the professor’s facial challenges to the other policy provisions, holding he had standing to challenge them under the First Amendment, though not on vagueness grounds. The case was remanded for further proceedings, requiring the professor to demonstrate that unconstitutional applications of the policy substantially outweigh constitutional ones. View "Rash v. Lafayette County" on Justia Law

Methylene chloride is a chemical used in various commercial applications, including paint removal and manufacturing of products like air conditioner coolants and EV batteries. While useful, over-exposure to methylene chloride can cause serious health risks, including injury and death. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), determined that nearly all uses of methylene chloride posed an “unreasonable risk of injury to health” and issued a rule severely limiting its manufacture, processing, distribution, and use, allowing only thirteen conditions of use under strict exposure limits.Prior to this rule, EPA had completed risk evaluations for methylene chloride, first in 2020 and then revised in 2022. The revised evaluation adopted a “whole chemical” determination, finding all but one use posed unreasonable risk, and assumed workers did not use personal protective equipment (PPE), contrary to prior practice and OSHA standards. Industry petitioners, including manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, filed for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that EPA’s determinations and rule were arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. Sierra Club also challenged the rule, asserting EPA did not go far enough to protect vulnerable populations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that EPA’s “whole chemical” risk determination violated TSCA, which requires separate evaluations for each condition of use. The court also held that EPA’s assumption of no PPE use was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law. EPA’s exposure limits for methylene chloride were deemed excessively conservative and not supported by the record. The court granted the industry petitioners’ review, vacated EPA’s rule and associated risk determination, denied Sierra Club’s petition, and remanded to EPA for further proceedings. View "East Fork Enterprises v. EPA" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Texas death-row inmate, was convicted of capital murder following his involvement in a multi-victim robbery homicide associated with gang activity in Hidalgo County, Texas. The prosecution’s case relied, in part, on the petitioner’s own recorded confession, which detailed his participation in the crime and described receiving an AK-47 prior to the robbery. The trial lasted thirteen days, and after a day of deliberation, the jury found the petitioner guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death. At sentencing, the jury heard limited information about the petitioner’s background, despite the existence of extensive juvenile records documenting significant mental health issues.On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) held that only one count of capital murder could stand due to double jeopardy concerns and otherwise affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence. Subsequent state habeas proceedings, including those before the TCCA, did not lead to relief. The petitioner then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, raising numerous claims. The district court, relying on a lengthy magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied the habeas petition and a certificate of appealability (COA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the petitioner’s request for a COA on two claims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not admitting juvenile records under the business-records hearsay exception, and error in admitting his confession as involuntary. The Fifth Circuit denied the COA, holding that the petitioner had not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution of either claim. Specifically, the court found that the ineffective assistance claim was procedurally barred because it was raised too late, and the voluntariness claim was not properly before the court due to procedural defaults in presenting new evidence and exhaustion theories. View "Ramirez v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Several owners of shoreline properties along Lake Austin challenged a 2019 ordinance enacted by the City of Austin. The ordinance declared that their properties had always been within Austin’s full-purpose jurisdiction, repealed a 1986 ordinance that had previously classified the properties as limited-purpose (which restricted taxation until city services were provided), and subjected the properties to full taxation. The plaintiffs alleged that Austin taxed their properties as if they were full-purpose residents but provided fewer municipal services than other full-purpose residents, raising federal and state law claims.Initially, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed all claims under the Tax Injunction Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of all but two claims and remanded the case. Upon remand, the City reasserted several grounds for dismissal, including the political-question doctrine, Pullman abstention, Burford abstention, and failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge recommended Pullman abstention, which the district court adopted, dismissing the claims without prejudice and entering final judgment. The plaintiffs appealed again.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision and held that the case was not moot, as recent state legislation neither refunded taxes nor automatically disannexed the properties. The Fifth Circuit concluded that Pullman abstention was inappropriate because the plaintiffs’ federal equal protection claim did not hinge on any uncertain or disputed question of Texas law. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration of the City’s remaining grounds for dismissal, expressly declining to reach those grounds itself. View "Harward v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

A television production company maintained insurance coverage for its shows, including one chronicling the struggles of obese individuals to lose weight. In 2011, the insurer added an exclusion to the general liability portion of the policy, barring coverage for “any/all reality shows.” The company did not object to this exclusion. Years later, several participants or their families sued the production company for injuries allegedly arising from the show’s filming. The insurer refused to defend or indemnify the company, citing the “reality show” exclusion.The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking confirmation that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The production company counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violations of Texas consumer protection statutes. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for bodily injuries arising from reality shows like the one at issue. At a subsequent bench trial, the district court rejected the company’s fraud and statutory claims, finding no misrepresentation by the insurer and concluding the company could not have justifiably relied on any representation given its knowledge of the exclusion and the show’s nature.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the company forfeited its argument about the ambiguity of "reality show" by not raising it in the district court and, in fact, previously represented the show as a “reality show.” The appellate court also found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings rejecting the fraud and consumer protection claims, noting substantial evidence of the company’s understanding of the exclusion. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in full. View "Megalomedia v. Philadelphia Indemnity" on Justia Law

A former student at a New Orleans university was reported by a fellow student for stalking after a school-sponsored trip to Honduras. The report included allegations that he had made threatening statements about his ability to build bombs and use chemical agents, and referenced chemical burns. Based on this report, a warrant was issued and he was arrested for misdemeanor stalking. After his arrest, a university police officer gave statements to the campus newspaper, which published articles suggesting he possessed chemical materials capable of killing people and had made threatening posts on social media. The student withdrew from the university shortly after his arrest, and the criminal case was later dismissed with no charges related to weapons or chemicals.The student filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting various claims including defamation and negligence against the university. The university responded by filing a special motion to strike under Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP statute (Article 971), which provides an expedited procedure for dismissal of claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. The district court denied the motion, holding that Article 971 does not apply in federal court when jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed whether Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court. The Fifth Circuit held that Article 971 conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56 because it imposes additional procedural requirements not found in the federal rules, such as burden-shifting and limitations on discovery. As a result, the court concluded that Article 971 does not apply in federal court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the university’s special motion to strike. View "Sahs v. Loyola Univ New Orleans" on Justia Law

Federal and state agencies enacted a rule listing two distinct population segments of the lesser prairie-chicken as "endangered" and "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The rule divided the bird’s range into Northern and Southern segments, based on habitat and genetic differences. Conservation groups, including one that originally petitioned for the listing, were active throughout the process. After a change in presidential administration in 2025, the federal government signaled a shift in environmental policy and, in ongoing litigation, ultimately conceded error in applying the "distinct population segment" policy. The government and various state and industry plaintiffs sought to settle by vacating the listing rule.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas consolidated the lawsuits challenging the listing. Conservation groups moved to intervene twice: the first motion was denied because the court found the government would adequately represent their interests, and the second was denied as untimely and for failure to rebut that presumption. Meanwhile, the district court granted the government’s motion for voluntary vacatur and remand, finding the listing rule unlawful due to the agency’s conceded error.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of intervention de novo and the timeliness determination for abuse of discretion. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in finding the second motion to intervene untimely, as the conservation groups acted promptly after government conduct revealed a divergence of interests. The court found all requirements for intervention of right satisfied and reversed the denial of intervention. However, the Fifth Circuit determined the conservation groups lacked appellate standing to challenge the vacatur and remand of the listing rule, so it did not reach the merits of the district court’s substantive ruling. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Texas v. Dept of the Interior" on Justia Law