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

Former employees of Shriners Hospitals for Children were terminated for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccination. They sued their employer, its agents, and the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services, alleging violations of their right to refuse the vaccine under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Statute, and various Texas state laws.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all claims. It found no personal jurisdiction over the agents due to the fiduciary shield doctrine, determined that Shriners was not a state actor when it implemented the vaccination policy, and ruled that the EUA Statute did not apply. The court also dismissed the claims against the Commissioner, concluding she was not liable for failing to stop Shriners from enforcing the policy. The state-law claims were dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It agreed that there was no personal jurisdiction over the agents and that Shriners was not a state actor when it adopted the vaccination policy. The court also held that the EUA Statute did not apply to Shriners in its capacity as an employer and that the Commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a clearly established right requiring her intervention. The appellate court modified the dismissal of the state-law claims to be without prejudice and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals" on Justia Law

Relators Tiffany Montcrief and others filed a False Claims Act suit against Peripheral Vascular Associates, P.A. (PVA), alleging that PVA billed Medicare for vascular ultrasound services that were not completed. The claims were categorized into "Testing Only" and "Double Billing" claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators, concluding that PVA submitted knowingly false claims. A jury found these claims material and awarded approximately $28.7 million in damages against PVA.The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators on the issues of falsity and knowledge of falsity. The jury found that the claims were material and caused the Government to pay out money. The district court entered judgment against PVA, including statutory penalties and treble damages. PVA appealed, challenging the district court's grant of partial summary judgment and certain rulings during and after the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on the Testing Only claims but remanded for a new trial on damages. The court reversed the partial summary judgment ruling on the Double Billing claims, vacated the final judgment, and remanded for a new trial consistent with its opinion. The court concluded that the district court erred in interpreting the CPT–4 Manual and in concluding that the Manual required PVA to create separate, written reports for vascular ultrasounds before billing Medicare. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in relying on Relators' post-trial expert declaration to calculate damages. View "Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular" on Justia Law

In 2015, bipartisan legislation repealed the U.S. ban on crude oil exports, leading to expanded efforts to export U.S. crude oil. This case involves an administrative challenge to a construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for expanding operations at the Moda Ingleside Crude Export Terminal in Texas. The expansion includes constructing new docks and a turning basin, requiring dredging and discharging material into U.S. waters. The Corps conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and approved the permit. Plaintiffs, including Native American tribes and an environmental association, sued to invalidate the permit, claiming violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment for the Corps, concluding that the Corps had adequately studied the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion. The court found that plaintiffs had associational standing but had waived certain claims by not raising them in summary judgment briefing. The court also found that plaintiffs forfeited claims related to increased vessel traffic by not raising them during the notice-and-comment period.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 Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its environmental impacts analysis, including its assessment of cumulative impacts and climate change. The court found that the Corps's EA was sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. The court also agreed that plaintiffs had forfeited arguments related to increased vessel traffic. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Indigenous Peoples v. U.S. Army" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address interstate air pollution. The EPA disapproved these SIPs, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision, which mandates that states prevent their emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of national air quality standards in downwind states.The lower courts had not previously reviewed this case. The case was directly brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the petitioners sought to vacate the EPA's disapprovals. The petitioners argued that the EPA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the CAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitions for review from Louisiana and Texas, finding that the EPA's disapprovals were justified based on the states' own data and interpretations of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court concluded that the EPA had reasonably considered the relevant issues and provided adequate explanations for its decisions.However, the court granted the petition for review from Mississippi, vacated the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP, and remanded the matter to the EPA. The court found that the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on updated data that was not available to Mississippi at the time of its SIP submission. The court held that the EPA failed to reasonably explain its decision to use this updated data in an outcome-determinative manner. View "Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Texas Game Warden Dustin Delgado arrested Joshua McClain for driving while intoxicated after observing his truck swerve and conducting field sobriety tests. McClain later sued Delgado for false arrest. The district court denied Delgado qualified immunity. However, because McClain did not carry his burden to show Delgado violated his constitutional rights, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. Delgado moved for summary judgment on both the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion for the malicious prosecution claim but denied it for the false arrest claim. Delgado appealed the denial of qualified immunity for the false arrest claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Delgado had reasonable suspicion to stop McClain based on his swerving and probable cause to arrest him after observing clues of intoxication during field sobriety tests. The court found that McClain did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Delgado's conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's denial of Delgado's motion for summary judgment, granting Delgado qualified immunity. View "McClain v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Three Coast Guard servicemembers, Eric Jackson, Alaric Stone, and Michael Marcenelle, objected to a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security. Their requests for religious accommodations were denied, and they faced reprimands for refusing the vaccination. They filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case as moot after the Department of Defense rescinded its vaccination mandate, and the Coast Guard followed suit. The Plaintiffs' motion for relief from final judgment was also denied, leading to their appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo. The appellate court found that the case was not moot because the Coast Guard had not issued policies protecting unvaccinated servicemembers from discrimination, unlike the Navy, which had implemented such protections. The court noted that the Plaintiffs could still face adverse actions based on their vaccination status and that a court order could provide effective relief. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Noem" on Justia Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (Great Lakes) sought a letter ruling from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the application of the Jones Act to its offshore wind farm project. CBP's initial ruling required Jones Act-qualified vessels for transporting scour protection rock from U.S. points to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However, a modified ruling stated that the first delivery of rock to the OCS did not require a Jones Act-qualified vessel, but subsequent deliveries did. Great Lakes appealed this modified ruling, which CBP denied.Great Lakes then filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas, claiming the modified ruling was contrary to law and would expose its planned Jones Act-compliant vessel to unlawful competition. The American Petroleum Institute (API) intervened, arguing that Great Lakes lacked standing as it had no actual or imminent injury. The district court agreed with API and dismissed the case, finding Great Lakes' injury hypothetical since it did not have a vessel capable of handling the Vineyard Project and no current contract for the project.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Great Lakes argued it had competitor standing due to the potential for increased competition from foreign vessels. However, the court found no evidence of actual or imminent increased competition, as the Vineyard Project was completed and there was no indication that future projects would source rock from U.S. points. The court also rejected CBP's argument that the ruling applied to identical future projects, as there was no record evidence of such projects involving U.S.-sourced rock.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Great Lakes lacked standing to challenge the CBP's modified ruling. View "Great Lakes Dredge v. Magnus" on Justia Law

Three states challenged an executive order issued by President Joseph R. Biden, which mandated that federal contractors pay their workers a minimum hourly wage of $15. The states argued that the President exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine. The district court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with the states, finding that the FPASA did not grant the President broad authority to set minimum wages for federal contractors and that the executive order was a major question beyond the President's authority. The court permanently enjoined the executive order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the executive order was a permissible exercise of the President's authority under the FPASA. The court found that the FPASA's language was clear and unambiguous, granting the President broad authority to prescribe policies necessary to carry out the Act's provisions, as long as those policies were consistent with the Act. The court determined that the executive order met these requirements, as it aimed to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement by ensuring contractors paid their workers adequately.The Fifth Circuit also addressed the application of the major questions doctrine, concluding that it did not apply in this case because the FPASA's text was clear and unambiguous. The court noted that the President's exercise of proprietary authority in managing federal contracts did not raise a major question requiring clear congressional authorization. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's permanent injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of Texas v. Trump" on Justia Law

The National Automobile Dealers Association and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association challenged the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). They argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by not issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), failed to provide a reasoned basis for the rule, and conducted an arbitrary and capricious cost-benefit analysis. Alternatively, they requested a remand for additional evidence consideration.The FTC published the CARS Rule without an ANPRM, which led to the petitioners seeking judicial review. The rule aimed to address deceptive practices in the auto sales industry, including misrepresentations, mandatory disclosures, prohibitions on valueless add-ons, and requirements for consumer consent. The FTC received over 27,000 comments during the rulemaking process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FTC violated its own regulations by not issuing an ANPRM, which is required under subpart B procedures for rules promulgated under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. The court determined that the Dodd-Frank Act did not grant the FTC independent substantive authority to bypass the ANPRM requirement. The court also rejected the FTC's argument for deference under Auer v. Robbins and Kisor v. Wilkie, finding no relevant ambiguity in the regulations.The court concluded that the FTC's failure to issue an ANPRM was not harmless error, as it deprived the petitioners of a procedural benefit that could have influenced the final rule. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the CARS Rule, without addressing the petitioners' remaining substantive challenges. View "National Automobile Assoc v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law