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

Defendants contested a summary judgment holding that the Mississippi Caller ID Anti-Spoofing Act (ASA), Miss. Code Ann. 77-3-805, violated the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs provide nationwide third-party spoofing services to individuals and entities. In light of the carefully-drafted language in section 227(e)(1) of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (TCIA), 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(1), and legislative history, and in spite of the presumption against preemption that attached to a state's exercise of its police power, there was an inherent federal objective in the TCIA to protect non-harmful spoofing. The ASA's proscription of non-harmful spoofing frustrated this federal objective and was, therefore, conflict preempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Teltech Systems, Inc., et al v. Bryant, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Title VII discrimination suit against his employer, the Department of Homeland Security. At issue on appeal was whether the parties had reached an enforceable settlement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was bound by the terms of his attorney's settlement offer. Further, the court never held that the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee was implicated by defective representation in Title VII proceedings and plaintiff had introduced no evidence to suggest that his attorney's representation was less than competent. View "Quesada v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21. After defendant investigated the allegation that plaintiff falsified his work and determined that he had, defendant terminated his employment. Because plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that his age was a motivating factor in his termination or that defendant created a hostile work environment, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The DWC issued a cease and desist letter to plaintiff arguing that his use of the words "Texas" and "Workers' Comp" in the domain name of his website violated section 419.002 of the Texas Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the statute was unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the regulation at issue was content-neutral and did not amount to a prior restraint. The court reversed the district court's finding that the law was constitutional as applied to plaintiff, and remanded to permit the parties to more fully develop the record on this issue. View "Gibson v. Texas Dept. of Ins., et al" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibited federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21. The court held that plaintiffs had standing; the challenged federal laws passed constitutional muster even if they implicated the Second Amendment guarantee; and under intermediate scrutiny, the challenged laws were constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the ban violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment where plaintiffs failed to show that Congress irrationally imposed age qualifications on commercial arms sales. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Rifle Association, et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the church alleging that the church terminated him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court dismissed the suit based on the ministerial exception, which barred employment-discrimination suits by ministers against their churches, pursuant to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC. Because the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the ministerial exception applied where plaintiff performed an important function during the church service as an accompanist, and therefore barred plaintiff's suit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cannata v. Catholic Diocese of Austin, et al" on Justia Law

The Church filed suit in federal district court, claiming that a now-repealed city ordinance's church-specific provisions, facially and as applied, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., the First Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Mississippi Constitution. The Church simultaneously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the challenged provisions. The court subsequently vacated the district court's order denying the Church's motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the issues on remand included but were not limited to: (1) whether the Church was likely to succeed on its claims challenging the validity of the newly adopted religious facilities ban; (2) whether the harm the Church would suffer absent a preliminary injunction outweighed the harm an injunction would cause the city; (3) the amount of actual damages the Church suffered on account of Sections 10.86 and 10.89 of the city's zoning ordinance, which violated RLUIPA; and (4) at the district court's discretion, whether the Church should be awarded reasonable attorneys fees as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). View "Opulent Life Church, et al v. City of Holly Springs MS, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim against her former employer. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the grievance procedure established in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provided the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's claim. Because the CBA did not clearly and unmistakably waive a union member's right to bring a Title VII claim in a federal judicial forum, the district court erred when it concluded that the CBA required plaintiff to submit her Title VII claim to the Article 51 grievance process. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ibarra v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood obtained a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of regulations which stated that health care providers participating in a Medicaid-like program must not perform or promote elective abortions. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of these regulations, reasoning that the regulations likely violated Planned Parenthood's rights to free speech and association, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The court held that the district court issued the preliminary injunction based on a wholesale assessment of the regulations' constitutionality, which gave insufficient attention to Texas' authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs. Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the preliminary injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Planned Parenthood Assoc., et al. v. Suehs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's Act 490, which amended Louisiana's Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law of 2001. The district court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss, holding that the claims were not ripe. The court affirmed because plaintiffs have failed to show that hardship would result from withholding court consideration at this time. View "Choice Inc. of Texas, et al. v. Greenstein" on Justia Law