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

The defendant, Munson Hunter, was indicted on multiple counts of bank and wire fraud for his role in a scheme that caused significant financial losses. After raising concerns about his mental health and undergoing a competency evaluation, Hunter pleaded guilty to one count in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges. His plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas imposed a term of supervised release with a special condition requiring Hunter to participate in a mental health program and take any medication prescribed by his physician. Hunter objected to being compelled to take medication.Despite the appellate waiver, Hunter appealed the medication condition, arguing it infringed on his due process rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially dismissed his appeal, relying on circuit precedent that recognized only limited exceptions to appeal waivers. The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently granted certiorari and announced a new rule: appeal waivers are unenforceable if their enforcement would result in a "miscarriage of justice"—that is, if they would leave in place an obvious and egregious error undermining the integrity of the judicial system.On remand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s new standard. The court determined that the record supported the imposition of the medication condition, finding no "blatant" constitutional error or egregious statutory violation. The court concluded that requiring Hunter to take prescribed medication as part of supervised release did not constitute the kind of obvious judicial error that would render the waiver unenforceable. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Hunter’s appeal waiver remained effective and dismissed the appeal. View "USA v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Texas enacted a law imposing new requirements on certain social media platforms, termed "digital service providers" (DSPs), to restrict minors’ access to specific categories of content. These requirements included monitoring and filtering content deemed harmful, prohibiting targeted ads to minors, preventing unlawful ads, verifying user age for access to certain material, and requiring age registration for account creation. Two groups challenged the law: one group, including technology industry organizations, contested the monitoring and filtering requirement; another group, comprised of a student coalition, individuals, and an ad agency, challenged several provisions, including the monitoring and filtering, targeted ads, unlawful ads, and age-verification requirements.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, both plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the law. The district court granted injunctions in part, enjoining the monitoring and filtering requirements for both groups, and enjoining the targeted ads, unlawful ads, and age-verification requirements for the student coalition group. The court found these provisions likely unconstitutional or vague, and held that the plaintiffs had standing based on the chilling effect on their speech and listening rights. The Attorney General of Texas appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the student coalition plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the monitoring and filtering, targeted ads, and unlawful ads requirements, as they were not directly regulated and failed to show a substantial risk of imminent harm. Their challenge to the age-verification requirement was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. However, the court held that the monitoring and filtering requirement, as challenged by the industry groups, is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction as to the industry group, but vacated and remanded the injunction as to the student coalition plaintiffs. View "Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The defendant, after previously pleading guilty to aggravated criminal damage to property under Louisiana law, was found in possession of a firearm. His earlier offense involved intentionally damaging vehicles during a police traffic stop, endangering human life, which led to a three-year sentence. After serving his sentence, he was again found with a firearm, resulting in an indictment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reviewed the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial, and was sentenced to 56 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to the defendant, considering whether the government's justification for permanent disarmament was supported by a historical tradition consistent with the Second Amendment, as outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Fifth Circuit found that the government had not met its burden to demonstrate a relevant historical analogue for disarming individuals with a property crime predicate like the defendant’s. The court declined to expand precedent by treating aggravated property damage as sufficiently violent for permanent disarmament under historical going-armed laws.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss and remanded the case for reconsideration. The main holding was that, absent sufficient evidence of a historical tradition supporting disarmament for this type of predicate felony, the government had not justified the application of § 922(g)(1) to the defendant. View "USA v. Debrow" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts including conspiracy to possess and brandish firearms during crimes of violence and drug trafficking, conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and Hobbs Act robbery. He pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. The factual basis submitted in support of the plea indicated that he was associated with a street gang, communicated about drug sales and firearms, participated in the use and possession of firearms for drug trafficking, and attempted to rob a rival drug dealer. The presentence report attributed to him the provision of a rifle used in a murder, and found him responsible for specific drug quantities. It recommended applying a cross-reference for first-degree murder under the Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a significantly higher advisory sentencing range.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held an evidentiary hearing to consider the defendant’s objections to the presentence report, including the factual findings, drug quantity calculations, omission of a mitigating role adjustment, application of the cross-reference, and the standard of proof. The court overruled the objections, found sufficient evidence for the factual findings, adopted the presentence report, denied the mitigating role adjustment, applied the first-degree murder cross-reference, and sentenced the defendant to 360 months’ imprisonment. The defendant timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings, affirming its credibility determinations, evidentiary findings, drug quantity calculations, denial of a mitigating role adjustment, and use of the preponderance of the evidence standard. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s application of the cross-reference for first-degree murder, holding that the firearm used in another offense must be cited in the offense of conviction for the cross-reference to apply. As a result, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "USA v. Murphy" on Justia Law

A major industrial accident occurred at a petroleum refinery in Texas operated by a large energy company. During repairs, a pipe ruptured, leading to an explosion and fire that injured several workers and required an extensive emergency response. One employee, who played a critical role in the emergency efforts, later sought counseling and was diagnosed by multiple healthcare professionals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) attributed to the incident. The company, following its procedures and the relevant Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule, reviewed these diagnoses to determine if they should be recorded as work-related mental illnesses under federal recordkeeping requirements.After receiving differing opinions from healthcare providers, the company ultimately concluded that the employee did not have a recordable work-related mental illness, relying on its designated medical evaluator’s assessment. The employee’s union reported the matter to OSHA, which investigated and cited the company for failing to record the PTSD diagnosis as required by OSHA’s rule. The company challenged the citation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The ALJ upheld the citation and imposed a monetary penalty. When the company sought further review, OSHRC declined, and the ALJ’s decision became the agency’s final order. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that OSHA lacked statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. § 657(c)(2) to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses. The court determined that the term “illnesses” in the statute referred only to physical ailments. As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated OSHA’s rule, the citation, and the penalty imposed on the company. View "Exxon Mobil Corporation v. OSHC" on Justia Law

Michael and Tiffany Fullerton participated in a scheme with two others to fraudulently obtain over $3 million from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The conspiracy involved submitting six fraudulent loan applications using defunct or shell companies, falsified tax and employment records, and stolen or fabricated identities. The proceeds were laundered through a series of complex financial transactions, including layered transfers among accounts, use of cashier’s checks, and investments in out-of-state ventures and luxury purchases.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas handled the initial proceedings. Michael pled guilty to eleven counts, including conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and identity theft, and was sentenced to 286 months in prison after receiving several sentencing enhancements. Tiffany was convicted at trial of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering but acquitted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She received a 108-month sentence, which included an enhancement for suborning perjury, based on findings that she procured Michael’s false testimony at her trial. Tiffany’s motion for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence regarding Michael’s prior conduct, was denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed multiple issues. The court affirmed all sentence enhancements for Michael—including those for sophisticated means, sophisticated laundering, leadership role, and obstruction of justice—concluding that each enhancement was supported by distinct and sufficient evidence. The court also upheld Tiffany’s obstruction enhancement, denial of her motion for a new trial, and the calculation of her intended loss amount. However, the court remanded the case solely for correction of a clerical error in Tiffany’s judgment, as she was acquitted of one charge listed in the written judgment. The Fifth Circuit otherwise affirmed the district court’s rulings. View "USA v. Fullerton" on Justia Law

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