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

Burnside, a sergeant for the Nueces County Sheriff’s Department, was assigned to the patrol division. Burnside also served as chairman of a law enforcement political action committee (PAC). In 2012, Sheriff Kaelin, up for re-election in a contested race, approached Burnside while Burnside was on duty and told him that the PAC should support Kaelin’s re-election bid. Burnside said that he would not treat Kaelin differently from any other candidate and that PAC members would vote on the endorsement. Kaelin told Burnside that Kaelin would move him to jail duty if the PAC did not support Kaelin’s candidacy. Kaelin knew that Burnside personally supported Kaelin’s opponent. That the PAC did not support Kaelin, was common knowledge. Three weeks after the PAC failed to endorse Kaelin, Kaelin transferred Burnside to the “extremely less desirable position” of jail duty. Burnside continued to work at the jail for a year. In 2013, his employment was terminated because of the dissemination of a recording containing Kaelin’s threat against another officer. Burnside sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Kaelin was denied the defense of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed as to the termination claim and affirmed denial of qualified immunity as to the transfer claim. View "Burnside v. Nueces Cnty." on Justia Law

By statute and constitutional provision, Mississippi prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and does not recognize those marriages entered into by same-sex couples which have been validly performed and are recognized elsewhere, Miss. Const. art XIV, 263A; Miss. Code. 93-1-1(2). In October 2014, two same sex couples and the Campaign for Southern Equality, a non-profit advocacy group, challenged the bans as violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Mississippi from enforcing the marriage bans, but stayed the effect of its own order for 14 days to permit the state to seek a further stay of the injunction pending an appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted Mississippi’s emergency motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, noting considerations of intra-circuit uniformity and the avoidance of confusion; that it will hear arguments on bans in Texas and Louisiana within one month; and that the Supreme Court granted a similar stay while the issue of Utah’s marriage ban was pending before the Tenth Circuit. View "Campaign for So. Equal. v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Appellant, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's order civilly committing her under 18 U.S.C. 4245, contending that section 4245's statutory preponderance-of-the-evidence standard violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court concluded that section 4245's preponderance-of-the-evidence standard does not violate due process in light of the other significant procedural protections afforded to prisoners subject to civil-commitment proceedings. The different contexts for civil commitment - prisoners as distinguished from citizens - reflected distinct liberty interests that justified different evidentiary standards. View "Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant" on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to Mississippi's disclosure requirements for ballot initiatives proposing amendments to the state constitution. Plaintiffs, Mississippi citizens, contend that the disclosure requirements impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights. The district court agreed and enjoined Mississippi from enforcing the requirements against small groups and individuals expending "just in excess of" Mississippi's $200 disclosure threshold. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing where they have shown that they have a legitimate fear of criminal penalties for failure to comply with Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code's disclosure requirements; plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, asserted both as a collective group and by each plaintiff individually, failed because the record is bereft of facts that would allow the court to assume that plaintiffs intend to raise "just in excess of" $200 as a group or as individuals; the requirements that Mississippi has enacted under Chapter 17 survive plaintiffs' facial challenge under the exacting scrutiny standard where the government has identified a sufficiently important government interest in its disclosure scheme to have an interest in knowing who is lobbying for Mississippians' vote, and is substantially related to this informational interest; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's order and rendered judgment in favor of defendants were plaintiffs' as-applied and facial constitutional challenges failed. View "Justice, Jr., et al. v. Hosemann, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Luther Scott, Jr. and the Louisiana NAACP, filed suit to enjoin defendants to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-1973gg-10. Scott alleged that he was not provided with a voter registration form when applying for food stamps, and the NAACP alleged that it had to divert resources to voter registration drives as a result of Louisiana's purported non-compliance. On appeal, the Secretary of State challenged the district court's injunction against it. The court was primarily concerned with the Secretary's challenge to the extent of its requirement that state welfare agencies provide benefits applicants with voter registration forms. The court dismissed Scott's claims on standing and notice grounds; on the merits of the NAACP's claim, the court concluded that the plain meaning of the declination form obliged the court to vacate in part the relief the district court granted to the NAACP; and affirming in part, the court held that the Act gives the Secretary enforcement authority, and that consequently he has an obligation to require the two state agencies to comply with the other miscellaneous portions of the Act. View "Scott, Jr., et al v. Schedler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Arnold and Sheriff Graves, alleging violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father while responding to a 911 call that the father was threatening to commit suicide. Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under the father's accidental death policy. The district court granted Arnold and Grave's motions for summary judgment and granted ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment. The court held that Arnold did not violate the father's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered the father's home without a warrant because he had an objectively reasonable belief that the father would imminently seriously injure himself, and the district court did not err in granting Arnold's motion for summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim because Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity; Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate the father's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Arnold on the assault and battery claims, the false imprisonment claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the district court correctly granted Graves's motion for summary judgment; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ReliaStar where the record was replete with factual evidence that ReliaStar relied on in determining that the father's death was not accidental, demonstrating that ReliaStar could have reached its determination without resorting to the conflict of interest at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rice, et al. v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against the enforcement of two recent amendments to Texas's laws concerning the performing of abortions (H.B. 2). The district court enjoined the admitting privileges requirement and the ambulatory surgical center provision of H.B. 2 as to all abortion facilities. The district court also enjoined other specific applications of H.B. 2. The State appealed and filed an emergency motion to stay the district court's injunctions pending the resolution of their appeal. Because plaintiffs sought only as-applied relief from the admitting privileges requirement for two abortion clinics, the district court acted inappropriately by invalidating the admitting privileges requirement for all abortion clinics in Texas. The district court's facial invalidation of the admitting privileges requirement is directly contrary to this circuit's precedent. The court concluded that the State has shown a likelihood of success regarding whether the ambulatory surgical center provision is unconstitutional on its face where it satisfies rational basis review and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the provision will result in insufficient clinic capacity that will impose an undue burden on a large fraction of women. In regard to the district court's injunctions of both requirements as applied to clinics in McAllen and El Paso, the court concluded that the State has met its burden as to each, with the exception of the ambulatory provision as applied to El Paso. Accordingly, the court granted in part, denied in part, and stayed the district court's injunction orders until the final disposition of the appeal. View "Whole Woman's Health, et al. v. Lakey, et al." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated from his position as Director of the University's art galleries after he told a member of U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert's staff that he believed Rep. Gohmert was a "fear monger," plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the University and others, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for the exercise of protected speech in violation of his First Amendment rights. Defendants appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The court concluded that defendants should have known that plaintiff's speech was protected as the speech of a citizen and that their decision to terminate plaintiff on the basis of that citizen speech would violate plaintiff's First Amendment right. The court held that the law of this circuit clearly established what a reasonable investigation was such that a reasonable official would have known that defendants' investigation was unreasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that every reasonable official in defendants' positions would have known based on precedent that an informal, hastily concluded investigation would be unreasonable. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the law was "clearly established" at the time.View "Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, for racial discrimination. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege an adverse employment action under Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that, viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff plausibly alleged that he was subject to the equivalent of a demotion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Thompson v. City of Waco, TX" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive use of force from the shooting and death of Israel Leija, Jr. by a DPS trooper. The district court denied the trooper's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because multiple genuine disputes of material fact existed as to the qualified immunity analysis. The court concluded that whether Leija was posing a substantial and immediate risk of danger to other officers or bystanders, sufficient to justify the use of deadly force at the time of the shooting, is a disputed fact. Because on this record, the immediacy of the risk posed by Leija cannot be resolved as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Luna, et al. v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety" on Justia Law