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

A female senior administrator at a Mississippi public university, who had served as Vice President and Chief of Staff since 2017, alleged that she was not hired for the position of university president on two occasions, in 2020 and 2023, despite her extensive qualifications and expressed interest. In 2020, following the resignation of the then-president, the university’s governing board appointed a less-experienced male interim president without conducting a search or soliciting applications, even though the plaintiff had managed university affairs in the president’s absence. After the interim president was placed on administrative leave in 2023, the board began a new search. The plaintiff applied but was denied an interview; instead, the board selected another male candidate with less experience, who had not applied for the position.The plaintiff filed suit against the board members in their individual capacities, alleging sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as Title VII claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed all claims against the individual board members except for the § 1983 equal protection claim regarding the 2023 hiring decision. The district court found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case of sex discrimination and that the right to be free from such discrimination was clearly established, thus denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded a violation of clearly established equal protection rights, including allegations that each defendant took individual actions causing the asserted harm. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as to the § 1983 equal protection claim arising from the 2023 hiring decision. View "Jackson v. Duff" on Justia Law

Federal and state law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the home and business of George Peterson, a federally licensed firearms dealer operating out of his residence in Louisiana. The warrant was supported by an affidavit detailing months of investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), including undercover purchases where Peterson failed to report firearm sales as required and sold firearms under circumstances suggesting knowledge of illegal transactions. During the search, agents discovered a homemade, unregistered firearm suppressor in Peterson’s closet safe. The suppressor lacked a serial number and was not registered as required by the National Firearms Act (NFA).A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted Peterson for possession of an unregistered suppressor in violation of the NFA. Peterson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the NFA’s registration scheme violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him, and also moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied both motions. Peterson entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal those rulings. He was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that, assuming suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, the NFA’s “shall-issue” licensing and registration regime is presumptively constitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and related precedent. Peterson failed to show that the NFA’s requirements denied him his rights or were applied abusively. Regarding the motion to suppress, the court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officers reasonably relied on a warrant issued by a magistrate judge, even if probable cause was disputed. Thus, both denials were affirmed. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Michelle Evans attended a debate at the Texas Capitol in May 2023 regarding gender reassignment treatments for children. While at the Capitol, Evans encountered a transgender politician in the women’s restroom. A photo of this individual washing their hands was posted to Facebook by someone in Evans’s group, and Evans subsequently tweeted the same photo with a caption expressing her belief that the politician should not have used the women’s restroom. The tweet led to controversy and an investigation by the Department of Public Safety, prompted by Travis County District Attorney José Garza, to determine if Evans’s actions violated Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b), which prohibits transmitting images of individuals in bathrooms or changing rooms without consent and with intent to invade privacy.Evans sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, aiming to prevent Garza from investigating or prosecuting her for disseminating the photograph. She argued that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to her conduct, citing First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court denied her requests for injunctive relief, reasoning that the equities weighed against granting the injunction, and that the values underlying abstention doctrines informed its decision. The court found no ongoing state judicial proceeding that would trigger abstention and did not make explicit findings on the likelihood of success on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Evans had standing but agreed that she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms justified injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the statute was not facially unconstitutional and that Evans had not shown it was unconstitutional as applied to her situation. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Evans v. Garza" on Justia Law

Detectives sought to arrest an individual based on an outstanding warrant and observed him near a corner store. When approached, he fled and discarded a loaded firearm into a bush. Upon apprehension, officers recovered the firearm and found five rocks of crack cocaine and $94 on his person. The individual had multiple prior felony convictions under Louisiana law, including attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, aggravated flight from an officer, possession of heroin, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated battery. He pled guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced him to 70 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. The court applied a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), finding that he possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically drug trafficking, based on the quantity of crack cocaine and circumstances of his arrest. The defendant objected, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement, but the district court overruled the objection and adopted the Presentence Investigation Report.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed his facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as well as the application of the sentencing enhancement. The court held that existing precedent foreclosed his Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit concluded the district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level enhancement, determining that the record plausibly supported a finding that he possessed the firearm in connection with drug trafficking. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. View "USA v. McCree" on Justia Law

On the night of November 29, 2021, a Hattiesburg police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle due to a defective tag light. The driver, unable to provide identification or insurance, was asked to exit the car. During a protective pat-down, the officer discovered a concealed firearm on the driver, who initially denied its presence. The officer then approached the passenger, Andrew Ducksworth, who stated he was paralyzed from the waist down. After requesting Ducksworth to raise his hands and initiating a pat-down, the officer felt a hard object between Ducksworth’s legs, which Ducksworth denied was a firearm. Upon further investigation and backup, officers found a loaded firearm in Ducksworth’s possession and learned he was a convicted felon.Ducksworth was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the firearm, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the pat-down, and also moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. After a hearing, with officer testimony and corroborating body- and dash-cam footage, the district court denied both motions. At a bench trial, Ducksworth stipulated to all elements of the offense, presented no evidence, was found guilty, and sentenced to thirty-six months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motions and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the driver’s possession and concealment of a firearm, the high-crime area, and the officer’s safety concerns—there was reasonable suspicion for the pat-down. The court also held that Ducksworth’s stipulation satisfied the statutory element of a prior felony conviction and rejected his constitutional challenges, affirming the district court’s judgment in full. View "United States v. Ducksworth" on Justia Law

Ahmadou entered the United States from Niger in 2016 under an F1 student visa. In 2021, he visited a Texas gun range, rented and fired guns, and completed a waiver form that did not list his visa status as a prohibited category for firearm possession under federal law. Investigators connected Ahmadou to an Islamic extremist involved in a 2020 attack, and a search of Ahmadou’s devices revealed extensive ISIS propaganda. Undercover agents were present during his visits, but did not instruct the gun range staff to act differently. Ahmadou was later arrested and admitted his gun range visits were in preparation for potential jihad overseas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ahmadou moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing he was entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation by the gun range’s waiver form. The district judge denied his motion, excluded evidence of the defense, and refused his proposed jury instruction. After trial, a jury found Ahmadou guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and declined to apply the terrorism enhancement, but imposed an above-guidelines sentence, citing Ahmadou’s conduct and associations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because the gun range’s waiver form was not an affirmative misrepresentation, and the firearms dealer was not a federal official or agent for purposes of the defense. The Fifth Circuit also found that denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and the above-guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as it was based on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). View "USA v. Ahmadou" on Justia Law

Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell, who has a history of criminal conduct, was previously convicted of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a felony offense. Years later, during the execution of an unrelated arrest warrant, law enforcement found firearms in the room he occupied and Mitchell admitted to daily marijuana use. Based on his prior § 922(g)(3) conviction, Mitchell was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi for being a felon in possession of a firearm under § 922(g)(1).After his indictment, Mitchell moved to dismiss the charge on several constitutional grounds, including an as-applied Second Amendment challenge in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion, after which Mitchell entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue. He was sentenced to sixty-four months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that, under Bruen and its own precedent, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers Mitchell’s conduct and that the only relevant predicate offense for an as-applied challenge is his prior § 922(g)(3) conviction. The court found that the government failed to identify a historical tradition justifying permanent disarmament of individuals with a predicate offense based solely on habitual marijuana use, in the absence of evidence of active intoxication while possessing a firearm. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit ruled that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mitchell’s predicate offense, reversed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, and vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are entities that own and operate a four-story building in Kemah, Texas. The building houses a bar, residential rental units, and a food truck. The dispute began when, in July 2021, the city issued a zero-occupancy notice for the building after an inspection found multiple safety hazards, prohibiting anyone except the owner and repair contractors from entering. Plaintiffs allege this deprived them of almost all economic use of the property. Separately, the city took enforcement action against the food truck, culminating in its removal from the property in October 2021. Plaintiffs challenged the food truck towing in state court, but ultimately dropped their appeal. They then sued the city in federal court, raising federal and state takings, due process, and equal protection claims regarding both the zero-occupancy notice and the food truck towing, and sought declaratory relief.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the city’s motion to dismiss. The court found the claims related to the zero-occupancy notice were not ripe because plaintiffs had not pursued available administrative appeals to the city council, as allegedly required by city ordinances. The court dismissed the food truck claims on the merits, and dismissed the request for declaratory relief because no substantive claims remained.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the zero-occupancy notice claims as unripe. The appellate court determined that the city’s issuance of the zero-occupancy notice constituted a sufficiently final decision for purposes of ripeness and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reversed the dismissal of the zero-occupancy notice claims and remanded those claims, including the related request for declaratory relief, for further proceedings. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had waived their food truck claims by failing to adequately brief them on appeal and affirmed their dismissal. View "T&W Holding v. City of Kemah, Texas" on Justia Law

The defendant, Marcos Hernandez, has a documented history of violence against the mother of his child, Jessica Murillo, including multiple arrests and convictions for assault. His conduct escalated over several years, resulting in convictions for misdemeanor and felony assault of a family member under Texas law. In May 2023, Hernandez was found in possession of a short-barreled, unregistered 12-gauge shotgun while walking along a railroad track in El Paso, Texas. Subsequent investigation confirmed he had no firearms registered to his name. Hernandez was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of an unregistered firearm.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Hernandez’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that both statutes violated the Second Amendment and, for one count, the Commerce Clause. Hernandez then pled guilty to both charges, admitting to his prior felony convictions and the facts surrounding the firearm. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release. Hernandez timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Hernandez’s constitutional challenges de novo. The court concluded that his facial Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by precedent. Regarding his as-applied Second Amendment challenges to both statutes, the Fifth Circuit held they fail because the Second Amendment does not protect possession of short-barreled shotguns and because Hernandez’s predicate offenses are crimes of violence. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, such convictions permit categorical disarmament. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Hernandez’s convictions. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Residents of Jackson, Mississippi, brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the city knowingly contaminated their drinking water with lead, failed to treat the water to prevent lead leaching, and misled the public about the water’s safety. The complaint details how city officials ignored warnings about the water system’s vulnerabilities, failed to repair critical treatment equipment, switched water sources in a way that worsened contamination, and delayed notifying residents of dangerous lead levels. Plaintiffs claim they and their families suffered significant health effects, including lead poisoning and related medical and developmental issues, as a result of consuming the contaminated water.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a substantive due process claim against the city and that the individual city officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity by claiming the city affirmatively introduced toxins into the water supply, misrepresented the water’s safety, and thereby deprived residents of the ability to make informed decisions about their health. The court also formally adopted the state-created danger doctrine as a viable theory in the circuit. The court reversed the dismissal of the due process claims against the city and vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims, remanding for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the individual city officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding the relevant rights were not clearly established at the time. View "Sterling v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law