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

Petitioner and her son entered the United States illegally after fleeing alleged gang violence in Honduras. They sought asylum and related relief but were denied; their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was likewise dismissed. Petitioner then moved the BIA to reopen her and her son’s removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion. Petitioner petitioned for a review of that denial.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction over the BIA’s refusal to reopen Petitioner, and it otherwise rejects her claims on the merits. The court explained that there is no per se rule that every family-based PSG is cognizable. Congress did not make persecution based on “family” a statutorily enumerated ground for asylum or withholding of removal. The court wrote that Petitioner was required to put forward at least some evidence of the social distinction of her son’s nuclear family in Honduran society. Because she did not, she failed to make out a prima facie case of eligibility for withholding of removal or asylum. The consequence is that she failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by allegedly ineffective counsel. The BIA did not err in denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her withholding-of-removal and asylum claims. Moreover, the court explained that attempting to raise a due process claim through an argument about the BIA’s failure to reopen sua sponte does not bring the claim within the court’s jurisdiction. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

This case is part of the battle between telecommunications providers that are attempting to expand next-generation wireless services (commonly called 5G) and municipalities that are resisting that expansion. The City of Pasadena used another method: aesthetic design standards incorporating spacing and undergrounding requirements The city invoked those requirements to block Crown Castle’s ability to develop a 5G network in the region, and Crown Castle sued for relief. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) anticipated those strategies and previously had passed the Federal Telecommunications Act (“FTA”) and responsive regulations. As a result, the district court decided in favor of Crown Castle, primarily basing its decision on the expansive language of the FTA and an FCC ruling interpreting the Act in light of 5G technology and associated challenges.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the FTA preempts the city’s spacing and undergrounding requirements, and the city forfeited its arguments relating to the safe-harbor provision in the FTA. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering a permanent injunction. The court explained that, as the court found, the regulations affect only small cell nodes that would permit T-Mobile to offer extensive 5G service in Pasadena. Moreover, the court wrote that a party seeking a permanent injunction must establish (1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in that party’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. All those factors weigh in Crown Castle’s favor. View "Crown Castle Fiber v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

Brothers and energy consultant executives led an international bribery scheme implicating companies and individuals across the globe. They pleaded guilty to crimes related to their participation in the enterprise and their attempts to cover it up. Several press agencies intervened and successfully moved to unseal almost all the documents in the case up to that point. Not only were many of the documents filed under seal, but the district court also closed part of the sentencing hearing to the press and public. At the same time, media interest in the case remained high, and the intervening press organizations moved to unseal numerous documents related to the sentencing. The district court denied their motion. On appeal, the intervening organizations maintain that they have both a First Amendment and a common-law right to access at least some of the sealed information.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervenors’ motion to unseal documents related to Defendant’s sentencing. The court held that intervenors were not so deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard as to justify reversal. They had notice of the general reasons that the parties would likely proffer to keep the information under seal. The documents unsealed after the court granted intervenors’ 2020 motion contained passages identifying the interests that the parties viewed as compelling enough to justify sealing. The court explained that even if the court had unsealed the opposition brief as much as possible while still safeguarding the interests it identified in its ultimate order, the outcome would not have changed. View "USA v. Financial Times" on Justia Law

In this class action, Plaintiffs, representing persons who have been convicted of certain crimes and have completed the terms of their sentences, challenge their disenfranchisement by two provisions of Article XII of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. The first provision, Section 241, mandates permanent, lifetime disenfranchisement of a person convicted of a crime of any one of “murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy.” The second, Section 253, provides for a discretionary, standardless scheme for the Mississippi Legislature to restore the right to vote to disenfranchised persons on an individualized basis by a two-thirds vote of all members of each house of the Legislature. Plaintiffs sued Mississippi’s Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), contending that Section 241 violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s contrary ruling, render judgment for Plaintiffs on this claim, and remanded the case with instructions that the district court grant relief declaring Section 241 unconstitutional and enjoining the Secretary from enforcing Section 241 against the Plaintiffs and the members of the class they represent. Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim against the Secretary with respect to Section 241, however, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). Finally, the court held that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the legislative process embodied in Section 253 through this action. View "Hopkins, et al v. Hosemann" on Justia Law

Plaintiff received his third citation for Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”). As a term of his probation, Plaintiff, an alcoholic, was required to attend weekly substance abuse classes. Some of these classes conflicted with shifts that Plaintiff was scheduled to work as an operator at a plant owned by Defendant La Grange Acquisitions, L.P. Plaintiff informed his supervisors that he was an alcoholic and that several of the court-ordered substance abuse classes would conflict with his scheduled shifts. When Plaintiff was unable to find coverage for these shifts, La Grange, citing this scheduling conflict, terminated Plaintiff. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Plaintiff sued La Grange under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12112 et seq., for intentional discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Grange on all three claims.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the facts suggest only that a reasonable employer might have found that Plaintiff might have been seeking accommodation for his disability. To hold that La Grange was required to determine whether Plaintiff had a disability and needed accommodation in this situation would place the initial burden of identifying an accommodation request on the employer, not the employee. We cannot find that Plaintiff’s terse references to his struggles with drinking and self-identification as an alcoholic, made while discussing the legal implications of a recent DWI, were enough to place a legal responsibility on La Grange to probe whether Plaintiff was requesting a disability accommodation. View "Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions" on Justia Law

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) are two of the primary means of federal arms regulation and licensure T.he statutes impose heightened and at times, onerous requirements on manufacturing, selling, and transferring certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles (“SBRs”). The ATF issued a Proposed Rule indicating that the agency would use a point system to classify a firearm with a stabilizing brace as either a braced pistol or a rifle. The ATF published the Final Rule. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief, alleging various statutory deficiencies with the process and substance of the Final Rule. They also brought constitutional challenges. The district court denied injunctive relief, and after it did not rule expeditiously on a motion for an injunction pending appeal, this court enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule against the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now request that we extend that interim relief.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. The court explained that because the Final Rule is properly characterized as a legislative rule, it must follow the APA’s procedural requirements for notice and comment, including providing the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The court wrote that it is relatively straightforward that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, and the monumental error was prejudicial. The Final Rule must be set aside as unlawful or otherwise remanded for appropriate remediation. View "Mock v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs asserted claims in district court under Section 1983 against various officials for failing to protect a man in custody, claiming violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also have claims against individual defendants under a theory of bystander liability and a claim against the Sheriff for supervisory liability. And, against Culberson County, Plaintiffs asserted a claim under Section 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), on the basis that its policies related to jail-suicide prevention caused a violation of Schubert’s constitutional rights. But, this interlocutory appeal concerns only the failure-to-protect claims against Appellants.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Appellants possessed the requisite subjective knowledge. The court explained that although Plaintiffs alleged that the man in custody was cooperative and appeared truthful in his responses, Plaintiffs also alleged: the Sheriff was still required to conduct a mental-health screening form in accordance with TCJS; and, because “the form had not been completed,” the Sheriff “had to operate on the belief that the man was suicidal” and “was required to put the man on suicide watch.” The court explained that it requires that a defendant have “actual knowledge of the substantial risk of suicide.” Plaintiffs failed to allege that the man did or said anything to indicate he was suicidal. Because Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly show the Sheriff was subjectively aware of the risk of suicide, their allegations do not state a failure-to-protect claim against him. View "Edmiston v. Borrego" on Justia Law

This action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arises out of a man’s death while in pretrial detention in the Callahan County, Texas, Jail. Plaintiffs’ challenged the adverse summary judgments, including contesting evidentiary rulings.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs failed to show the requisite genuine dispute of material fact for whether the four defendants had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide; therefore, they fail to show a constitutional violation. Further, the court wrote that even assuming the court abused its discretion, the contested exhibits concern only Defendants’ knowledge regarding the risk of telephone cords as ligatures; they do not bear on Defendants’ subjective knowledge regarding whether the man was a substantial suicide risk. Accordingly, the court’s sustaining Defendants’ objections did not affect Plaintiffs’ substantial rights. Therefore, this assumed error was harmless. View "Crandel v. Hastings" on Justia Law

In January 2022, a jury convicted United Development Funding (“UDF”) executives (collectively “Appellants”) of conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and eight counts of aiding and abetting securities fraud.  Jurors heard evidence that Appellants were involved in what the Government deemed “a classic Ponzi-like scheme,” in which Appellants transferred money out of one fund to pay distributions to another fund’s investors without disclosing this information to their investors or the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Appellants each filed separate appeals, challenging their convictions on several grounds.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that evidence strongly supports a finding that Appellants intended to conduct a scheme to deprive investors of their money. There is proof that they purposefully advertised a desired rate of return to brokers and continued to solicit investors to invest their money into UDF III despite knowing that UDF III did not have enough money to sustain its current investors. Evidence also shows that they purposefully did not invest UDF IV and UDF V investors’ money into the business or otherwise use the money to further fund developer’s projects. Further, the court held that the foremost scheme alleged here was for the Appellants to obtain money from investors, and the Government’s mountain of evidence supporting this theory is sufficient, regardless of the invalidity of its subsidiary theory. Here, the Appellants fail to highlight the multiple errors that they allege occurred throughout their trial. View "USA v. Greenlaw" on Justia Law

Defendant, a deer farmer in Louisiana, was found guilty of aiding and abetting others in hunting over bait and hunting over a baited area, both in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The district court affirmed the conviction, fine, and one-year term of probation. On appeal, Defendant principally argued that the MBTA and accompanying regulations allow him to use Mississippi’s Cooperative Extension Service guidance for the Southeast region, rather than the guidance issued by Louisiana’s Extension Service, to take advantage of the MBTA’s safe harbor provision.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the safe harbor exemption found in Section 20.21(i)(1) is only applicable where feed has been distributed “solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation.” Defendant does not challenge the extraneous improvements evidence and, instead, argues only that the Government made its case based on outdated guidance from the expert witness and did not look to Mississippi’s extension service recommendations that Defendant’s planting allegedly followed. The court wrote that because it held that the Cooperative Extension Service and State Extension Specialists’ guidance is state-specific, the court found no error in the Government’s use of the LSU Extension’s recommendations. Further, the court reasoned that even if the Mississippi State guidance was applicable, it did not benefit Defendant because he did not follow the normally accepted practice of placing one inch of soil over the seeds. View "USA v. Holdman" on Justia Law