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

Two development companies owned land in Johnson County, Texas, within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Mansfield but outside the city’s corporate boundaries. To develop this land, the companies needed access to retail water services, which, under state law, could be provided only by the Johnson County Special Utility District (“JCSUD”) because it held the exclusive certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for the area. However, a contract between JCSUD and the City of Mansfield required JCSUD to secure Mansfield’s written consent, which could be withheld at the City’s discretion, before providing water services within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The developers’ efforts to obtain water service were unsuccessful, as Mansfield demanded annexation and additional fees, ultimately refusing to formalize an agreement.After unsuccessful negotiations and attempts to compel service through the Texas Public Utility Commission, the developers sued the City of Mansfield in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. They alleged violations of the Sherman Act and brought state-law claims. The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, holding that Mansfield was entitled to state-action antitrust immunity under Texas law, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Mansfield was entitled to state-action immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that, although Texas law authorizes monopolies for water utilities through CCNs, it does not clearly articulate or authorize the City of Mansfield to act anticompetitively concerning the area in question, since the CCN belonged to JCSUD. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of state-action immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Megatel v. Mansfield" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Michael Hagar, is an individual convicted of cyberstalking and making interstate threats. He submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a copy of a specific email he sent in 2016, which became part of the FBI’s investigation. Hagar specifically sought the unredacted “To” line of recipients and the email’s complete header information, which includes technical metadata such as server paths and timestamps. The FBI initially provided the email with recipient information redacted, citing privacy exemptions, and declined to produce the header metadata, arguing it would require the creation of a new record.Following his FOIA request, Hagar filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The magistrate judge terminated Hagar’s initial summary judgment motion as premature, set a schedule for further briefing, and allowed the FBI to move for summary judgment. After the FBI sent Hagar an unredacted copy of the email, the magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for the FBI, agreeing that the header information would require creation of a new record and, alternatively, was exempt under FOIA. The district court adopted this recommendation, entered judgment for the FBI, and denied Hagar’s post-judgment motions and misconduct claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that because Hagar had received the “To” line information, his claim for that was moot. The court further held that FOIA does not require agencies to create new records to satisfy requests, and thus the FBI was not obligated to produce the header information. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, including denial of post-judgment motions, and dismissed Hagar’s judicial misconduct claims as meritless. View "Hagar v. FBI" on Justia Law

A professional pilot was asked to operate a Cessna Citation 550 aircraft whose tail number had recently been changed by its owner from N550ME to N550MK. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved the new registration and issued new documents, but denied a new airworthiness certificate because the aircraft required further inspection. Believing the registration had reverted to the old number due to the denial, the owner had the physical tail number altered back to N550ME using tape, while the aircraft carried documents for both the old and new registrations. The pilot, after being told about “paperwork issues” and noticing the taped number, proceeded to fly the aircraft on two flights without confirming the correct registration and without a valid airworthiness certificate for the current registered tail number. After the first flight, FAA inspectors issued a written notice warning that further operation would violate federal regulations; the pilot disregarded this and completed the return flight.The FAA suspended the pilot’s license for 150 days, citing violations of various regulations requiring proper display of the registered tail number and possession of a valid airworthiness certificate. The pilot appealed the suspension to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), where an Administrative Law Judge affirmed the FAA’s order after a hearing. The full NTSB then affirmed the ALJ’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, applying a deferential standard to the agency’s findings and sanction. The court held that the NTSB’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court concluded that the pilot’s reliance on the owner’s explanation was unreasonable and that the penalty was not excessive, even if the violations were administrative. The court also found no improper disparity in sanctioning compared to another pilot. The petition for review was denied, and the suspension was upheld. View "Hardwick v. FAA" on Justia Law

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a building in Corpus Christi, Texas, with significant cultural and historical importance, particularly within the Black community. Over several years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division cited the property for structural deficiencies and ultimately recommended its demolition. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts to preserve the building for historic purposes, the Building Standards Board voted to recommend demolition at a hearing that the plaintiff and her counsel could not attend. After the City temporarily suspended the demolition order, it imposed conditions on the plaintiff to secure the property, which the City later deemed unmet. The City then gave the plaintiff 30 days to demolish the building or face further action.The plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court against the City and two City employees, alleging that selective enforcement of building codes violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause, asserting a “class of one” theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a substantive constitutional violation and thus did not reach the question of municipal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the claim against the City, as the plaintiff did not pursue claims against the individual defendants. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a municipal policy, custom, or pattern of selective enforcement sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court found that a single cited instance of allegedly selective enforcement was insufficient to plead an official policy or custom. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action. View "Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

Gene Cleveland Battieste, a veteran, underwent surgery at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi in 2006. Although he had consented to surgery on certain cervical vertebrae, an additional procedure was performed on his C2 vertebra without his knowledge or consent. Following the surgery, Mr. Battieste experienced post-operative complications, including infection and increased pain. He applied for VA disability benefits in 2008, which were ultimately approved in 2020. The 2020 decision by the VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals was the first time Mr. Battieste or his family learned of the unauthorized surgery and the VA’s failure to provide proper informed consent or adequate post-operative care. Mr. Battieste died in 2022.In November 2022, the administrator of Mr. Battieste’s estate filed an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which the VA denied. In May 2024, a lawsuit for medical negligence was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court dismissed the case, finding that Mississippi’s medical malpractice statute barred any action brought more than seven years after the alleged negligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-36(2)’s seven-year period is a statute of repose, not merely a statute of limitations. The court found that Mississippi’s intermediate appellate courts consistently interpret the seven-year provision as an absolute bar to claims, and the statute’s structure and language support this reading. Because the suit was filed more than seven years after the surgery, the court held the claim was time-barred and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Battieste v. United States" on Justia Law

A group of small-business manufacturers of e-liquids and a trade association representing vapor product manufacturers challenged a rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. The 2009 Act requires FDA authorization before new tobacco products—including electronic nicotine delivery systems—can be marketed, mandating that applications demonstrate the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” The FDA’s 2016 “Deeming Rule” extended these requirements to e-liquids and vapor products, and in 2021, the FDA issued a Final Rule detailing requirements for premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs). Plaintiffs argued the Final PMTA Rule violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the FDA’s certification that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities was arbitrary and capricious.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA. It found the agency satisfied the procedural requirements of the RFA by considering and certifying the economic impact of the Final PMTA Rule, and that plaintiffs’ objections were substantive disagreements with the factual basis rather than procedural defects.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit applied a deferential standard, focusing on whether the FDA made a “reasonable, good-faith effort” to comply with the RFA’s procedural requirements. The court held that the FDA’s certification was supported by the factual record, including analysis in the 2016 Deeming Rule, and that the agency provided adequate consideration and reasoned rejection of regulatory alternatives. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the FDA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act when promulgating the Final PMTA Rule. View "Kealani Distribution v. FDA" on Justia Law

A Louisiana pharmacy owned by a licensed pharmacist was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration after allegations arose that the pharmacy was filling prescriptions for itself and for patients with “red flags” indicating possible misuse or diversion of controlled substances. The DEA’s investigation focused on several prescriptions, including combinations of opioids and benzodiazepines for various patients, out-of-pocket payments for controlled substances, and a prescription filled by the pharmacist herself written by her physician father, which violated state law prohibiting physicians from prescribing controlled substances to immediate family.Following an agency hearing before an administrative law judge, the DEA’s Administrator adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and revoked the pharmacy’s federal registration to dispense controlled substances. The Administrator concluded that the pharmacy had violated federal regulations and Louisiana law by filling prescriptions without adequately resolving red flags and by filling a prescription written in violation of state law. The pharmacy petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit found that the DEA misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and state law. The court held that 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) requires a pharmacist to “knowingly” fill an invalid prescription, which the DEA had not shown, and that a violation of the state-law standard of care is not, by itself, a violation of federal regulations. The court also held that the Louisiana law at issue did not apply to pharmacies. Because the DEA’s order rested on erroneous interpretations of governing regulations and state law, the Fifth Circuit vacated the deregistration order and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Neumann's Pharmacy v. Drug Enforcement Administration" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute, Act 358, which restricts drug manufacturers from interfering with the delivery of federally discounted drugs through contract pharmacies. The statute was passed in response to manufacturers’ efforts to limit the distribution of discounted drugs under the federal 340B Program, particularly through arrangements with contract pharmacies serving vulnerable populations. The plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana law was preempted by federal law and violated several constitutional provisions, including the Takings Clause, the Contracts Clause, and the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on vagueness.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana considered three related cases together. It denied the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment for the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) on all claims. The district court also allowed LPCA to intervene in each case, over the objection of one plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law. It found that the federal 340B statute does not occupy the field of pharmacy regulation and does not conflict with or frustrate federal objectives, as it is silent on the use of contract pharmacies and leaves room for state regulation. The court also concluded that Act 358 does not effect a physical or regulatory taking, does not substantially impair contract rights under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order permitting LPCA to intervene in AbbVie’s case, finding that LPCA’s interests were adequately represented by the State and it did not show it would present a distinct defense. The court affirmed summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AstraZeneca v. Murrill" on Justia Law

More than a decade ago, Peconic Bay Medical Center submitted an Adverse Action Report (AAR) to the National Practitioner Data Bank regarding Dr. John Doe. Dr. Doe made repeated efforts to have the AAR removed, including seeking review from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and filing federal lawsuits in Washington, D.C. These lawsuits were unsuccessful, with courts such as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejecting his claims. During the course of litigation, Dr. Doe obtained documents in discovery that he believed supported his renewed request for reconsideration to HHS regarding the AAR.HHS denied Dr. Doe’s request for reconsideration, stating that he was “not eligible for additional administrative review of the Report.” Dr. Doe then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging, among other things, that HHS’s denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court dismissed Dr. Doe’s APA claim, concluding that the denial of reconsideration was unreviewable because Dr. Doe had not presented new evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that HHS violated the Chenery principle by changing its rationale for denying reconsideration during the litigation. The Fifth Circuit held that judicial review of agency action must be based solely on the grounds set forth by the agency at the time of its decision. Because HHS’s stated reason was incorrect—Dr. Doe was eligible for reconsideration under department guidance—the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Dr. Doe’s APA claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law