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

A group of plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana’s Infrastructure Trespass Statute, arguing that amendments to the statute rendered it unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. The statute criminalizes unauthorized entry into critical infrastructure, including pipelines, and imposes significant penalties for violations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including the Louisiana Attorney General, the District Attorney of the 16th Judicial District, and the Sheriff of St. Martin Parish. The district court dismissed claims against the Attorney General on sovereign immunity grounds and found that the Advocacy and Landowner Plaintiffs lacked standing. The court also dismissed the Arrested Plaintiffs' as-applied claims as moot due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for their alleged violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims against the Attorney General, agreeing that the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity did not apply. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Advocacy and Landowner Plaintiffs for lack of standing, finding that their alleged injuries were not traceable to or redressable by the remaining defendants. The court agreed that the Arrested Plaintiffs had standing for their facial challenges but affirmed the dismissal of their as-applied claims as moot.On the merits, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Infrastructure Trespass Statute was neither impermissibly vague nor violative of the First Amendment. The court found that the statute provided sufficient notice of prohibited conduct and did not authorize arbitrary enforcement. The court also determined that the statute was not overbroad, as it served a substantial governmental interest in protecting critical infrastructure and did not substantially burden protected speech. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "White Hat v. Murrill" on Justia Law

Parents and students in Louisiana challenged a state statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The statute, House Bill 71 (H.B. 71), mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed prominently and legibly, with an optional inclusion of other historical documents. Plaintiffs argued that this statute violated the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana found the statute facially unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement. The court ruled that the statute's primary purpose was religious, not secular, and that it coerced students into religious observance, thus violating the Establishment Clause. Louisiana officials appealed the decision, arguing that the statute had a valid secular purpose and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the statute was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, relying on the precedent set by Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar statute in Kentucky. The court found that the statute's requirement to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, without integrating them into an educational curriculum, served no secular educational purpose and was inherently religious.The court also determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the statute, as they would be directly affected by the displays. The court rejected Louisiana's arguments regarding ripeness, standing, and sovereign immunity. The preliminary injunction was upheld, preventing the enforcement of H.B. 71 and requiring Louisiana officials to notify all public schools of the court's ruling. View "Roake v. Brumley" on Justia Law

Ahmed Abdalla Allam was charged with possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). Allam challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. The district court rejected his challenges, and Allam subsequently pled guilty. He then appealed the denial of his as-applied challenge.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas upheld the statute as constitutional, both facially and as applied to Allam, and denied his motion to dismiss. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, finding no historical precursor to § 922(q)(2)(A) but concluded that late 19th-century prohibitions on possessing firearms in schools and near polling places were relevantly similar historical analogues. Following the denial of his motion, Allam pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Bruen framework, determining that the Second Amendment's plain text covered Allam's conduct. However, the court found that § 922(q)(2)(A) was consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, particularly when considering historical laws like the Statute of Northampton and going-armed laws, which restricted carrying firearms in a manner that posed a threat to public safety. The court also considered historical firearm regulations in educational settings and buffer zones around polling places, which supported the constitutionality of disarming a visibly threatening individual near a school.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Allam's as-applied challenge and upheld his guilty-plea conviction. View "USA v. Allam" on Justia Law

Mark Hamilton, the former Chief of the Fire Department of Wilmer, Texas, was terminated after testifying at a probation revocation hearing for a former employee, Craig Lawrence, who had hidden recording devices in fire station bathrooms. Hamilton testified in uniform, drove a city car to the hearing, and did not take leave from work. He claimed his termination was in retaliation for his protected First Amendment activity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Hamilton's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that Hamilton did not state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, as his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. Hamilton appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hamilton did not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, as his testimony was given pursuant to his official duties as Fire Chief. The court also found that even if Hamilton's speech were protected, the City of Wilmer had adequate justification for treating him differently from any other member of the public due to his use of city resources and uniform during his testimony. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hamilton's claims and denied his request for leave to amend his complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile. View "Hamilton v. City of Wilmer, Texas" on Justia Law

Three-month-old La’Mello Parker died during a confrontation between his father, Eric Smith, and law enforcement. Smith, a fugitive wanted for double homicide, used La’Mello as a human shield and fired at officers, who returned fire, killing La’Mello. La’Mello’s grandfather and brother sued various law enforcement entities and officers, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the case, finding that the officers’ actions did not constitute constitutional violations and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims, stating that the conduct did not shock the conscience, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the officers did not violate La’Mello’s Fourth Amendment rights as their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that Smith posed a grave and immediate threat, and the officers’ decision to return fire was justified. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment claims failed as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience. The court concluded that without an underlying constitutional violation, the bystander liability and municipal liability claims also failed. View "Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The defendant, Justin Gregory Jubert, was charged with cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) and transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce. The charges arose from a prolonged online campaign where Jubert used multiple Facebook accounts to threaten, harass, and intimidate the victim, M.R., his wife, and their two minor daughters. The harassment included posting threats, insults, and personal information, escalating to threats of violence and tracking the daughters' activities. The family took significant security measures in response, including installing cameras and contacting law enforcement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Jubert's motion to dismiss the charges, rejecting his facial challenge to the statute but deferring the as-applied challenge. Jubert then pleaded guilty to the cyberstalking charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Jubert appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and addressed two main questions: whether the statute is facially overbroad and whether Jubert's conduct qualifies as a true threat. The court concluded that the statute is not overbroad and that Jubert's conduct constituted true threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) is constitutional as applied to Jubert and does not violate his right to freedom of speech. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Jubert" on Justia Law

In 2018, Marcus Delars Branson was convicted of bank robbery in Texas and sentenced to thirty-seven months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. A condition of his release was that he not possess a firearm. In March 2023, a probation officer found two firearms in Branson's apartment, leading to his indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Branson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The district court denied his motion, and Branson pled guilty, receiving a forty-one-month prison sentence, consecutive to a twenty-four-month revocation sentence, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Branson's motion to dismiss the indictment. Branson then pled guilty and was sentenced to a total of sixty-five months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Branson appealed, presenting both preserved and unpreserved constitutional challenges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Branson's appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Branson's facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges were foreclosed by precedent, specifically United States v. Diaz and United States v. Schnur. The court also rejected Branson's Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment challenges, citing previous rulings that had addressed similar arguments. Finally, the court found that Branson's void-for-vagueness challenge lacked merit, as § 922(g)(1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, and Branson had fair notice that his actions were unlawful. The court reviewed the unpreserved challenges for plain error and found none. Thus, the district court's sentence was affirmed. View "USA v. Branson" on Justia Law

Joseph Lee Betancourt was convicted for firearms possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. The case arose when Harris County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a 911 call reporting that Betancourt had brandished a firearm during an argument. Upon searching his home, deputies found firearms, ammunition, and body armor. Betancourt had prior felony convictions for aggravated assault, which served as the predicate for his prosecution under § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Betancourt’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment. Betancourt entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. Betancourt then appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires determining if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct and if the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also referenced United States v. Rahimi, which upheld prohibitions on firearm possession by individuals posing a credible threat to safety.The Fifth Circuit held that Betancourt’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge failed. The court found that Betancourt’s aggravated assault convictions, which involved reckless driving and causing serious injuries, demonstrated that he posed a threat to public safety. The court concluded that disarming Betancourt was consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

The Heidi Group, Inc. alleged that several Texas officials violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas law by conspiring with a private citizen to steal documents from a cloud-based file storage system. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings and asserted various immunity defenses. The district court denied the motions in relevant part.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case and denied the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal involved four distinct groups of orders: the denial of qualified immunity for individual capacity defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, and the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the state law religious-discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal regarding the religious-discrimination claim and declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim. The court held that only Gaylon Dacus engaged in state action and was not entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim. The court found that Dacus used a former employee to access Heidi's documents without proper authorization, violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also affirmed the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, as their actions were not in good faith. The court reversed the denial of judgment on the pleadings for Johnson and Kaufman on the individual capacity Fourth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heidi Group v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission" on Justia Law

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law