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

Marc and Augustus Degenhardt alleged that Corpus Christi Police Lieutenant Phillip Bintliff unlawfully initiated a traffic stop and that Bintliff and Officer Armando Cisneros unlawfully searched and towed their vehicle, retaliating against them for engaging in protected speech. The incident occurred when Marc, driving a Dodge Challenger with Augustus as a passenger, was stopped by Bintliff, who accused Marc of reckless driving and racing another vehicle. During the stop, Cisneros arrived and observed an open box of White Claw Hard Seltzers in the car. The officers ordered the brothers out of the car, conducted a search, and impounded the vehicle, charging them with minor alcohol possession and issuing a reckless driving warning. The charges were later dropped.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the suit, finding that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the remaining claims. The Degenhardts appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Degenhardts had sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment violation regarding the initial traffic stop, as the complaint suggested that Bintliff lacked reasonable suspicion. However, the court agreed with the district court that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle due to the visible alcohol. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the claims related to the vehicle's impoundment and the alleged retaliation for protected speech.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the Fourth Amendment claim related to the traffic stop. View "Degenhardt v. Bintliff" on Justia Law

Seven plaintiffs, all members of the Air Force, challenged the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, arguing it violated their religious beliefs. They sought religious exemptions, which were denied, leading to administrative discharge proceedings. One plaintiff, Byron O. Starks, Jr., was separated from service, allegedly for a preexisting medical condition, though he claimed it was due to his refusal to get vaccinated.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed the case as moot after the Air Force rescinded the vaccine mandate. The court also dismissed Starks’s claims for lack of standing, citing his separation from service and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the rescission of the mandate did not address all alleged harms, particularly the claim that the Air Force’s religious exemption process was a sham. The court held that Starks had standing because his separation caused ongoing harm, such as ineligibility for certain veteran benefits. The court also clarified that RFRA claims are not subject to the Mindes exhaustion requirement, allowing Starks to proceed without exhausting intraservice remedies.The Fifth Circuit determined that the claims of the six still-serving plaintiffs were not moot, as they alleged ongoing harm from the Air Force’s religious exemption process. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs to continue their challenge against the Air Force’s broader vaccination policies and religious accommodations process. View "Crocker v. Austin" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Infusion Center Association (NICA) and other plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, setting a "maximum fair price" between 40% and 75% of the market price. Manufacturers who do not comply face significant fines or must withdraw from Medicare coverage entirely.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed NICA's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court reasoned that NICA's claims had to be "channeled" through HHS as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405, which mandates that claims arising under the Medicare Act be decided by the relevant agency before being brought to federal court. The district court also dismissed the remaining plaintiffs due to improper venue without NICA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that NICA had standing based on both economic and procedural injuries. The court determined that NICA's claims did not arise under the Medicare Act but rather under the Inflation Reduction Act, and thus did not require channeling through HHS. The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over NICA's claims and reversed the lower court's dismissal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Natl Infusion Center v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Brett Favre, a former professional football player, sued Shannon Sharpe, another former player and sports talk show host, for defamation. Sharpe had made statements on his show accusing Favre of stealing funds from a government program intended for impoverished individuals. These comments were made in the context of a widely reported welfare scandal in Mississippi, where federal funds were misused, and Favre was alleged to have received some of these funds. Favre had not been criminally charged but was involved in a civil suit filed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) to recover misused funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Favre's defamation suit on the pleadings. The court ruled that Sharpe's comments were rhetorical hyperbole and thus not actionable. The court found that no reasonable person would interpret Sharpe's statements as literal accusations of theft, given the context of the broadcast.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court did not analyze the rhetorical hyperbole argument but instead focused on whether Sharpe's statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts. The court concluded that Sharpe's statements were strongly stated opinions based on widely reported facts about the welfare scandal. The court noted that the broadcast included corrections and clarifications about the facts, and Sharpe's comments did not imply undisclosed false facts. Therefore, the statements were nonactionable as they were opinions based on truthful, established facts.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Favre's defamation claim, holding that Sharpe's statements were protected opinions and did not constitute defamation. View "Favre v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

In the early morning, Javier Ambler II was driving without dimming his high beams, prompting a Texas sheriff’s deputy to signal him to stop. Ambler refused, leading to a high-speed chase involving multiple officers. The pursuit ended when Ambler crashed into trees in Austin, Texas. As officers attempted to arrest him, Ambler, who had congestive heart failure, repeatedly stated he could not breathe. Despite his pleas, Austin City Policeman Michael Nissen and other officers continued to restrain him. Ambler was eventually handcuffed but appeared limp and was later pronounced dead at a hospital. His family sued, alleging excessive force and bystander liability.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Nissen’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, citing genuine disputes of material fact. The court found that the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, could support a finding that Nissen used excessive force and failed to intervene to prevent other officers from using excessive force.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment because the appeal did not turn on a pure issue of law but rather on disputed facts. The court emphasized that factual disputes, such as whether Ambler was resisting arrest or posed a threat, were material to the plaintiffs’ claims and should be resolved by a jury. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ambler v. Nissen" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs J.A. Masters Investments and K.G. Investments brought state-law claims of fraud and breach of contract against the defendant. The case was fully litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which accepted jurisdiction based on the premise that the parties were citizens of different states under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). However, the record only mentioned the residence of each party, not their citizenship, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction.The district court conducted a five-day jury trial, and the jury rendered a verdict. Following the trial, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional issue: the pleadings did not definitively establish the citizenship of each party, only their residency. The court requested a joint letter from the parties to address whether diversity jurisdiction existed. The parties insisted that jurisdiction was proper and even stipulated to facts they believed would confirm complete diversity. However, they failed to provide citations to the record establishing citizenship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the record did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that citizenship and residence are not synonymous and that the parties had conflated the two. Given the incomplete record, the court decided to remand the case to the district court to allow the parties to supplement the record with the necessary jurisdictional facts. The court emphasized that without clear evidence of jurisdiction, any resolution would be nonbinding. The case was remanded for further proceedings to establish whether the parties are indeed citizens of different states, with the appellate panel retaining jurisdiction pending any further appeal. View "J.A. Masters Investments v. Beltramini" on Justia Law

Beneficiaries of a family trust sued the co-trustees, alleging mismanagement and the creation of a secret trust to withhold funds. They sought a declaratory judgment, accountings, and damages. The district court excluded all evidence of damages due to the beneficiaries' failure to provide a damages calculation as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the co-trustees, as the beneficiaries could not prove damages and were not entitled to a declaratory judgment or accountings.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana initially handled the case. The court granted the co-trustees' motion in limine to exclude damages evidence and subsequently granted summary judgment on all claims. The court found that the beneficiaries failed to provide a timely damages calculation and that their claims were time-barred under Louisiana law. The beneficiaries appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the damages evidence. The appellate court applied the "CQ factors" to determine that the exclusion was justified due to the importance of the evidence, the prejudice to the co-trustees, the availability of a continuance, and the beneficiaries' lack of a valid explanation for their delay. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment on all claims, as the beneficiaries could not prove an essential element of their case without the excluded damages evidence. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the beneficiaries' request for a declaratory judgment, as it was remedial in nature and dependent on the underlying claims for recovery. View "King v. King" on Justia Law

Caitlin Julia Weathers, a white woman, was hired by Houston Methodist Hospital as a Patient Transporter in May 2019 and later became a Patient Care Assistant in June 2021. She reported racial harassment and discrimination by her co-workers to her supervisor, Sunila Ali, and Human Resources (HR). HR investigated but found no evidence supporting her claims and instead received negative feedback about her performance. Weathers was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and was eventually terminated on October 4, 2021, for allegedly failing to meet the PIP's expectations. Weathers claimed her termination was retaliatory.Weathers filed an online inquiry with the EEOC on February 11, 2022, but faced difficulties scheduling an interview due to the EEOC's unavailability. After several delays and cancellations, she finally had an interview on August 1, 2022, and filed her charge of discrimination on August 3, 2022, 303 days after her termination. The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter on August 11, 2022. Weathers then sued Methodist and Ali for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The district court dismissed her claims against Ali, citing that employees are not personally liable under Title VII, and dismissed her claims against Methodist as time-barred for not filing within the 300-day deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Ali but found that the district court erred in not applying equitable tolling to Weathers's claims against Methodist. The court noted that the delays were partly due to the EEOC's actions and that Weathers had diligently pursued her claim. The court vacated the district court's judgment for Methodist and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Weathers's claims to proceed. View "Weathers v. Houston Methodist Hospital" on Justia Law

Employees of Smith International, Inc. filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The employees, known as reamers, supervised the use of Smith’s underreaming tool on offshore drilling rigs. They were paid an annual salary plus daily-rate job bonuses, with their total annual compensation exceeding $100,000. The employees argued that they were misclassified as exempt from overtime requirements and sought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana conditionally certified the action as a collective action. Later, the claims of some plaintiffs were severed into separate individual actions, while others continued as a collective action. The district court consolidated the five proceedings for all purposes except for trial. After discovery, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Smith’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the employees were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay guarantee as bona fide executives. The employees appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that each employee met the criteria for the bona fide executive exemption under the FLSA. Specifically, the employees satisfied the salary basis test, the salary level test, and the job duties test. The court found that the employees were paid a guaranteed annual salary, which was not subject to reduction based on the quality or quantity of work performed, and that the additional daily-rate compensation did not defeat their qualification for the exemption. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Smith International, Inc. View "Venable v. Smith International" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 21, 2019, Corey Spiller went to assist his girlfriend, Dashanelle Moore, after her minor car accident on a Houston expressway. While conversing with officers at the scene, Sergeant Jared Lindsay arrived and directed Moore to a nearby truck stop for further procedures, instructing Spiller to follow in his car. When Spiller questioned the officers about Moore, Lindsay became enraged, seized Spiller by the neck, and slammed him onto a parked car, leading to a scuffle where Spiller was tased and arrested. The charges against Spiller were later dropped.Spiller filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lindsay, Harris County, Harris County Constable Precinct 7, and Chief Constable May Walker, alleging excessive force, false arrest, bystander liability, retaliation, and ADA violations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims against Harris County, Precinct 7, and Walker for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for Lindsay on the basis of qualified immunity. Spiller appealed, challenging the summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment excessive force, false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and bystander liability claims against Lindsay, and the dismissal of his Monell claim against Harris County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Lindsay on the excessive force claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Lindsay's use of force was excessive and whether Spiller's actions justified such force. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the false arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims, concluding that Lindsay had probable cause for Spiller’s arrest. The court also upheld the dismissal of Spiller’s Monell claim against Harris County for failing to allege specific facts linking his injury to a county policy or custom. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Spiller v. Harris County" on Justia Law