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

Wilson and two associates attempted to purchase a firearm from D.J. at a gas station, only to discover that the firearm was fake. In retaliation, Wilson retrieved a handgun modified with a machinegun conversion device and an extended magazine from his vehicle. He confronted D.J. and fired multiple rounds, fatally wounding him. Wilson and his companions then robbed D.J. and fled the scene. Police subsequently located Wilson, who confessed to the shooting and acknowledged the weapon was equipped with a machinegun conversion device.Wilson was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas with unlawful possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(o) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied the motion. Wilson pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement. At sentencing, the Presentence Investigation Report applied the Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference to second-degree murder due to the death resulting from Wilson's conduct, resulting in a recommended sentence of 120 months, the statutory maximum. Wilson objected, claiming the cross-reference failed to account for his self-defense claim, but the district court overruled his objection, adopted the PSR, and imposed the recommended sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Wilson’s appeal. He challenged his conviction on Second Amendment grounds and the application of the second-degree murder cross-reference during sentencing. The Fifth Circuit held that circuit precedent, specifically Hollis v. Lynch, forecloses any Second Amendment protection for machineguns, and that Supreme Court precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen does not overrule this holding. The court also found no plain error in the district court’s application of the second-degree murder cross-reference. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Police officers in Rosenberg, Texas conducted a high-risk stop of a white Dodge Charger matching the description of a vehicle involved in a report of armed suspects. The only occupants were Michael Lewis and Regina Armstead, an elderly couple. Lewis had a dialysis-related stent in his left forearm, which could be damaged by placing handcuffs on that arm. During the stop, Lewis was handcuffed for about six minutes, reportedly experiencing pain. He later discovered his stent had been damaged and required surgery. Armstead informed an officer that Lewis was a dialysis patient, and Lewis claimed he told officers about his condition both before and after being handcuffed, though his statements were inconsistent.Lewis and Armstead filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the City, the police department, and the officers, including an excessive force claim. After a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court granted qualified immunity on most claims but denied it on Lewis’s excessive force claim against the five officers, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to when the officers were informed about Lewis’s medical condition. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the officers did not violate any clearly established law by briefly handcuffing Lewis during a high-risk stop, regardless of whether they had advance notice of his medical condition. The court found that relevant precedent did not place the constitutional question beyond debate under the circumstances, and thus, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Lewis v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Tony Lee Johnson, a convicted felon on supervised release, was arrested by law enforcement officers after he violated his release conditions by failing drug tests. The arrest was executed at Johnson’s residence when he and his girlfriend, Beatrice Simmons, were found in his vehicle. After Johnson was removed and arrested, Simmons was temporarily detained but not handcuffed. Officer Pringle, suspecting Johnson might be hiding something, conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle's driver area and center console, discovering a loaded handgun. Simmons stated she was unaware of the firearm and confirmed she was on parole for a prior drug offense.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held a hearing on Johnson’s motion to suppress the handgun, which he argued was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, finding the search constitutional under the protective-sweep exception outlined in Michigan v. Long, reasoning that Simmons posed a potential threat to officer safety due to her criminal history, relationship with Johnson, and emotional proximity to the arrest. Johnson then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, which led to his appeal to the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the warrantless search was not justified under the protective-sweep exception because no specific, articulable, contemporaneous facts suggested Simmons was potentially dangerous or would access a weapon. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and vacated Johnson’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations sought to circulate a petition to place a campaign finance ordinance on Houston’s ballot, but the city’s charter at that time required petition circulators to be both residents and registered voters of Houston. The plaintiffs did not meet these requirements. They notified the city of their intent to circulate petitions and challenge the constitutionality of the residency and voter registration requirements. The city initially did not clarify its position but later stated it would not enforce the challenged provisions. Despite this, the plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the requirements were unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas first granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the requirements. After the petition circulation period ended, the court dismissed the claims as moot following a stipulation by the parties. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court granted the plaintiffs declaratory relief and, after the city repealed the challenged provisions, awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees as prevailing parties. However, in a subsequent appeal, a different Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no case or controversy because all parties agreed the provisions were unconstitutional, vacated the judgment, and remanded for dismissal.On remand, the district court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and ordered reimbursement to the city. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this ruling, holding that after the prior appellate decision vacated the underlying merits judgment for lack of a case or controversy, there was no basis for a fee award under Rule 60(b)(5). The court also clarified that the city was not required to appeal the fee award directly, and the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice were unavailing. View "Pool v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (“S.B.1”), a sweeping law that amended numerous aspects of the state’s election procedures, multiple groups of plaintiffs—including civil rights and voter advocacy organizations—challenged thirty-eight provisions of the law. They alleged violations of various constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act, naming state officials including the Texas Secretary of State and Attorney General as defendants.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of standing. The district court addressed the motions on a provision-by-provision basis, concluding that the Secretary and Attorney General were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of most challenged provisions to overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young, and that plaintiffs had standing to sue. It denied the motions to dismiss for the majority of the claims, although it dismissed others as moot, for lack of standing, or for failure to state a claim. The defendants appealed the denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory sovereign immunity appeals. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the VRA claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. For the constitutional and other statutory claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court determined that the Secretary of State is a proper defendant only for those provisions she directly enforces—such as those involving the design of forms and sanctioning of registrars—and not for those enforced by other officials. Similarly, it held the Attorney General could be sued only for one provision authorizing civil penalties. The court affirmed standing for claims against provisions enforced by these officials. View "Un del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Juan Carlos Alvarez, a member of the Southwest Cholos gang, was convicted of capital murder for his involvement in two separate fatal shootings in Houston, Texas in June 1998. The first incident resulted in the deaths of Adrian and Michael Aguirre at an apartment complex, while the second led to the murder of sixteen-year-old Jose Varela and Hugo Perez. Alvarez was identified through eyewitness accounts, testimony from co-participants, forensic evidence, and his own admissions to police. The prosecution presented overwhelming evidence, including ballistics linking Alvarez’s firearm to the shootings and DNA evidence connecting his shotgun to one of the victims. At trial, Alvarez was represented by two attorneys; the defense focused on challenging witness credibility and provided mitigation evidence through family members and a psychologist.On appeal, Alvarez’s counsel raised numerous claims in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), which affirmed the conviction and death sentence. Subsequent state habeas proceedings involved multiple attorneys and filings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and issues regarding consultation with the Mexican consulate. Alvarez also asserted the introduction of tainted DNA evidence and misconduct by the Houston Crime Lab. The TCCA dismissed some of these habeas applications as an abuse of the writ, finding certain claims procedurally barred. Alvarez then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied all claims and refused to grant investigative funding or a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of habeas relief, analyzing three certified claims: deprivation of counsel due to one attorney allegedly sleeping during trial, ineffective assistance for failing to present additional mitigation evidence, and claims regarding tainted DNA evidence. The Fifth Circuit held that Alvarez was not constitutionally deprived of counsel since his second attorney was actively engaged, and there was no unreasonable application of federal law or unreasonable factual determination by the state courts. It also found no ineffective assistance in the mitigation phase and concluded the DNA-related claims were procedurally barred and, alternatively, meritless. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief. View "Alvarez v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Three business entities and individuals associated with the operation of a retail store in Cedar Park, Texas, were subject to enforcement under a city ordinance banning “head shops”—stores selling items commonly used to ingest or inhale illegal substances. After receiving notices from the City, two of the appellants were charged in municipal court and fined for violating the ordinance, while the third appellant, a related business entity, was not charged. Following the municipal court’s judgment, the two charged parties appealed for a trial de novo in the county court, which annulled the municipal court’s judgment and began new criminal proceedings. They also pursued state habeas relief, which was still ongoing at the time of this appeal.Separately, the appellants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging the ordinance’s validity and constitutionality under federal and state law, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed all claims as barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, which precludes certain civil claims that would imply the invalidity of existing criminal convictions. The district court also dismissed a distinct claim related to termination of utility services.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that because the municipal court’s judgments were annulled by the trial de novo and criminal proceedings were still pending under Texas law, there were no outstanding convictions to trigger the Heck bar. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims challenging the ordinance and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the standalone water termination claim, as the appellants had disclaimed any intent to pursue it. View "Kleinman v. City of Cedar Park" on Justia Law

A citizen advocacy group and two individuals challenged five provisions of a city ordinance in Kerrville, Texas, that regulated "canvassing" and "soliciting" activities at private residences and public streets. The ordinance defined "canvassing" as door-to-door advocacy on topics like religion, politics, or philosophy, and "soliciting" as seeking donations or advertising services, with both activities subject to restrictions on timing, signage, permitting, and location. Plaintiffs argued that these rules chilled their protected speech, including political canvassing, religious outreach, and commercial solicitation, and feared fines under the ordinance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas considered the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the district court found that the plaintiffs had standing as to most provisions except the rule applying to minors. On the merits, the district court enjoined enforcement of the permitting requirement for solicitors but declined to enjoin the hours, signage, and street restrictions, finding those likely constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Fifth Circuit agreed that plaintiffs had standing except as to the minor-related provision. It held that the hours and signage restrictions—because they targeted canvassing based on content—must be reviewed under strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny, and remanded for reconsideration. The court also found the city failed to justify the streets provision even under intermediate scrutiny and remanded for further injunction analysis. It affirmed the injunction against the permitting requirement but vacated it as overbroad, directing the district court to limit relief to the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit denied as moot the motion for an injunction pending appeal. View "LIA Network v. City of Kerrville" on Justia Law

The essential facts of this case involve an individual who was convicted in Mississippi state court for failing to pay child support, an offense punishable by up to five years in prison but for which he ultimately received only probation. After repaying the owed child support and completing probation, the individual was later indicted under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The predicate offense for the federal charge was the non-payment of child support.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the defendant twice moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him, among other constitutional challenges. The district court denied both motions. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue, leading to this appeal before the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that, under the historical inquiry required by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, there is no historical tradition supporting the permanent disarmament of a person convicted solely of non-payment of child support, particularly where the debt had been repaid and probation completed. The court rejected the government’s analogy between debtors and thieves, noting that founding-era practices treated debtors differently, allowing for temporary disarmament only until the debt was paid. The Fifth Circuit therefore held that the application of § 922(g)(1) to the defendant violated the Second Amendment and reversed the conviction, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Cockerham" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop in Hidalgo County, Texas, a sheriff’s deputy pulled over Gerardo Villarreal for driving with a partially obscured license plate. The deputy discovered Villarreal did not have a driver’s license or insurance. After a canine sniff alerted to an item in the vehicle, officers searched the car, finding a handgun and a small amount of cocaine. Villarreal was later indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law. He moved to suppress the handgun as evidence, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a hearing on the motion to suppress. The court heard testimony from the arresting deputy, who explained that department policy generally required impounding vehicles when the driver lacked a license or insurance, with certain exceptions. The deputy testified he would have impounded Villarreal’s vehicle and performed an inventory search, which would have revealed the handgun. Villarreal attempted to impeach this testimony, referencing another incident where the deputy did not impound a vehicle under similar circumstances, but the deputy explained possible exceptions. The district court found the deputy credible and denied the motion to suppress, applying the inevitable-discovery doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied because the government showed by a preponderance of the evidence that an inventory search, conducted pursuant to standard department policy, would have discovered the handgun. The court found that the impounding and inventory search were imminent before any alleged misconduct, and the department’s policy sufficiently limited officer discretion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding denial of the motion to suppress. View "USA v. Villarreal" on Justia Law