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

The en banc court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of conducting such proceedings as it considers appropriate and making detailed findings and conclusions concerning abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and related caselaw, and on the effect of Senate Bill 6 on the issues in this case.The court agreed with its sister circuit that, on the appeal from a preliminary injunction, issues relating to whether there is a proper suit at all can be decided, such as the existence of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and questions regarding abstention. The court concluded that it is possible on this record and briefing to make limited holdings now about whether any defendant was acting on behalf of Dallas County and about standing. In regard to abstention, the court concluded that briefing exists but is cursory. Therefore, the court ordered a limited remand for the district court to conduct such proceedings as it finds appropriate and decide whether abstention is required. Once that decision is made, the court will complete its review. View "Daves v. Dallas County" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal habeas application as time-barred, concluding that petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. The court stated that petitioner offers little to no support for his argument that the circumstances in his case are so extraordinary as to necessitate equitable tolling. More importantly, the court concluded that petitioner's plight is entirely self-inflicted and stems from his failure to comply with basic state procedural rules—about which he had notice. Furthermore, in responding to petitioner's initial, unexhausted 28 U.S.C. 2254 application, the State pointed out that petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies and that he needed to refile in state court before proceeding to federal court. Therefore, the district court did not err, much less abuse its discretion, in declining to equitably toll the limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court denied petitioner's motion to appoint counsel as moot. View "Jones v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Walmart's action challenging the government's interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as it applies to pharmacists who dispense prescription opioids. In this case, Walmart points to no rule, guidance, or other public document setting forth the positions it seeks to contest. The court concluded that, because Walmart identifies no agency action, as that term is used in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the suit is barred by sovereign immunity. Furthermore, even if the action was not barred by sovereign immunity, the court concluded that Walmart's failure to contradict a definite government position means that it has not demonstrated the existence of a ripe case or controversy, as required by Article III. Accordingly, the district court appropriately dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Walmart v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

This case, involving a dispute about the effect of provisions in the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act on the contraceptive mandate found in the Affordable Care Act, became moot with issuance of the Supreme Court's decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020).The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs no longer have a cognizable injury and the underlying dispute is moot. The court also concluded that Nevada did not cause the case to become moot; it was moot after the ruling in Little Sisters, and vacatur serves public interests in that it vacates a permanent injunction that Nevada never had proper opportunity to litigate the merits of before the district court; and, regardless, plaintiffs conceded Nevada was entitled to vacatur at oral argument. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss as moot. View "DeOtte v. Nevada" on Justia Law

Anthony Timpa's family filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, alleging that five officers of the Dallas Police Department violated Timpa's Fourth Amendment rights by causing his death through the prolonged use of a prone restraint with bodyweight force during his arrest. Plaintiffs asserted claims of excessive force and of bystander liability.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers as to the excessive force claims. Viewing the facts in the light most positive to plaintiffs, the court concluded that none of the Graham factors justified the prolonged use of force. In this case, a jury could find that Timpa was subdued by nine minutes into the restraint and that the continued use of force was objectively unreasonable in violation of Timpa's Fourth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the use of a prone restraint with bodyweight force on an individual with three apparent risk factors—obesity, physical exhaustion, and excited delirium—created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Furthermore, the record supports that Timpa was subdued nine minutes into the continuing restraint and did not pose a threat of serious harm. Finally, the court held that the state of the law in August 2016 clearly established that an officer engages in an objectively unreasonable application of force by continuing to kneel on the back of an individual who has been subdued.In regard to bystander liability claims, the court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on these claims against Officers Mansell, Dominguez, and Vasquez. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to these claims. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the bystander liability claim against Officer Rivera. View "Timpa v. Dillard" on Justia Law

The Secretary of DHS and other federal government defendants moved to stay the district court's nationwide, preliminary injunction barring enforcement of one of the federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates related to the staff of many Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, home-health agencies, and hospices.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion insofar as the order applies to the 14 Plaintiff States, concluding that the Secretary has not made a strong showing of likely success on the merits in light of BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021). In BST, the Fifth Circuit relied in part on the "major questions doctrine" in staying the COVID-19 vaccination mandate OSHA issued for employers of a certain size. In this case, the Secretary identifies meaningful distinctions between its rule for Medicare and Medicaid-funded facilities and the broader OSHA rule — the statutory authority for the rule is different; Medicare and Medicaid were enacted under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause; and the targeted health care facilities, especially nursing homes, are where COVID-19 has posed the greatest risk. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the first stay factor requires more than showing a close call. Therefore, the court could not say that the Secretary has made a strong showing of likely success on the merits. Furthermore, the other three factors for a stay — injury to the movant, injury to the opponent, and the public interest — are important but, regardless of the outcome of analyzing them, they will not overcome the court's holding that the merits of the injunction will not likely be disturbed on appeal.Applying principles of judicial restraint, the court granted the stay as to the order's application to any other jurisdiction, concluding that the district court gave little justification for issuing an injunction outside the 14 States that brought this suit. View "Louisiana v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Following the October 1, 2017 tragedy in Las Vegas where a gunman fired several semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks and killed 58 people and wounding 500 more, the ATF promulgated a rule stating that bump stocks are machineguns for purposes for the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the federal statutory bar on the possession or sale of new machine guns.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of plaintiff's challenge to the rule, agreeing with the district court that the rule properly classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" within the statutory definition and that the rule of lenity does not apply. The court need not address plaintiff's contentions that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing the rule or that the rule violates constitutional principles of separation of powers as resolution of these issues will not affect the outcome of the case. View "Cargill v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) was created by the Secretary of DHS on December 20, 2018. On June 1, 2021, DHS permanently terminated MPP. The district court subsequently vacated the Termination Decision and ordered DHS to implement the Protocols in good faith or to take a new agency action that complied with the law. DHS chose not to take a new agency action, and instead chose to notice an appeal and defended its Termination Decision, seeking a stay of the district court's injunction while the appeal was pending. The Fifth Circuit denied the motion and the Supreme Court affirmed. On October 29, 2021, DHS issued two additional memoranda to explain the Termination Decision, purporting to "re-terminate" MPP. The Government then informed the Fifth Circuit that, in its view, the October 29 Memoranda had mooted this case.Under Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that this case is nowhere near moot. In any event, the vacatur DHS requests is an equitable remedy, which is unavailable to parties with unclean hands. The court stated that the Government's litigation tactics disqualify it from such equitable relief. The court addressed and rejected each of the Government's reviewability arguments and determined that DHS has come nowhere close to shouldering its heavy burden to show that it can make law in a vacuum.On the merits, the court concluded that the Termination Decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court also concluded that the Termination Decision is independently unlawful because it violates 8 U.S.C. 1225, which requires DHS to detain aliens, pending removal proceedings, who unlawfully enter the United States and seek permission to stay. Finally, in regard to the Government's contention that section 1182 allows DHS to parole aliens into the United States on a case-by-case basis, the court concluded that deciding to parole aliens en masse is the opposite of case-by-case decisionmaking. The court denied the Government's motion to vacate the judgment and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Texas v. Biden" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed two actions against their landlord, MAA, alleging that it charged unreasonable late fees in violation of the Texas Property Code and seeking to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court certified in both cases and MAA sought interlocutory review of class certification.The Fifth Circuit concluded that, under section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code, there is no requirement that a landlord engage in a process to arrive at its late fee so long as the fee is a reasonable estimate at the time of contracting of damages that are incapable of precise calculation. Therefore, the district court erred in interpreting section 92.019 and the court remanded to the district court to determine if class certification is appropriate. View "Cleven v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity for claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this case, plaintiff filed suit for disability discrimination under the Act after he was terminated from his job of nearly twenty-four years based on his medical problems. The court also denied plaintiff's request to certify a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, concluding that this case does not present a genuinely unsettled matter of Louisiana law and thus certification is not appropriate. View "Fletcher v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development" on Justia Law