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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the HHS Defendants in an action challenging HHS's risk-adjustment program, implemented under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and repromulgation of the 2017 and 2018 rules. In this case, Vista Health Plan, a health insurance company in Texas, was assessed risk-adjustment fees that exceeded its premium revenue, causing the company to cease operations.After determining that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, the court concluded that the 2017 and 2018 Final Rules adopted by HHS were not impermissibly retroactive under Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 268 (1994). The court also concluded that HHS's failure to follow the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment procedures in its repromulgation of the 2017 Final Rule was at worst harmless error. Rather, the new rule actually maintained the settled expectations of insurers covered by the previous version of the rule. Finally, the court concluded that Vista's other issues on appeal regarding the administrative record before the district court, Chevron deference as to HHS's interpretation of the governing law, and the district court's "sua sponte" summary judgment on Vista's regulatory taking claim lack merit. View "Vista Health Plan, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that, under the particular circumstances presented here, Ultra Resources is not subject to a separate public-law obligation to continue performance of its rejected contract, and that 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(6) did not require the bankruptcy court to seek FERC's approval before it confirmed Ultra Resource's reorganization plan.Applying In re Mirant Corp., 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004), the court concluded that the power of the bankruptcy court to authorize rejection of a filed-rate contract does not conflict with the authority given to FERC to regulate rates; rejection is not a collateral attack upon the contract's filed rate because that rate is given full effect when determining the breach of contract damages resulting from the rejection; and in ruling on a rejection motion, bankruptcy courts must consider whether rejection harms the public interest or disrupts the supply of energy, and must weigh those effects against the contract's burden on the bankrupt estate. Because Mirant clearly holds that rejection of a contract is not a collateral attack on the filed rate, the court concluded that FERC does not have the authority to compel continued performance and continued payment of the filed rate after a valid rejection. The court rejected any further arguments to the contrary. View "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Ultra Resources" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a partial stay of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Defense, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and United States Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccination requirements against 35 Navy special warfare personnel and prohibiting any adverse actions based on their religious accommodation requests. Specifically, defendants seek a partial stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction precludes them from considering plaintiffs' vaccination statuses "in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions."The court weighed the Mindes abstention factors and determined that this dispute is justiciable. However, the court concluded that defendants have not carried their burden to warrant the issuance of the stay. The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown a compelling interest to deny religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to each of the 35 plaintiffs at issue. Rather, the "marginal interest" in vaccinating each plaintiff appears to be negligible and thus defendants lack a sufficiently compelling interest to vaccinate plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the preliminary injunction does not irreparably damage the Navy and the public; partially staying the preliminary injunction pending appeal would substantially harm plaintiffs; and issuance of the requested stay would disserve the public interest. View "U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden" on Justia Law

OSHA investigated DRTG, a Houston construction company, following a worksite fatality. DRTG employees provided DRTG’s business address, which is also the home address of DRTG’s sole owner. On September 13, OSHA issued a citation and a notice of a proposed penalty to DRTG, mailed to the provided address by USPS certified mail. After an unsuccessful delivery attempt was made on September 16, USPS left a standard delivery slip saying that the certified mailing would be held at the Post Office for pick-up; DRTG never retrieved the mailing. OSHA sent the citation by UPS Next Day Air on September 23. According to UPS tracking, the citation was successfully delivered to DRTG’s doorstep on September 24. DRTG had 15 working days to file a notice of contest, which OSHA calculated from the date of the UPS delivery as October 16. DRTG did not file the notice by the deadline. The citation became a final order on October 16, 29 U.S.C. 659(a). The next day, an OSHA representative spoke with Padron regarding documentation required by the citation. A "next of kin letter" sent by OSHA to a DRTG employee who was the deceased employee’s cousin, was received on October 18, was immediately forwarded to DRTG’s counsel.On November 5, OSHA received DRTG’s notice of contest, which was ultimately rejected as untimely. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. DRTG was properly served with notice. View "D.R.T.G. Builders, L.L.C. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: 1. If Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Section 22.16(f) exempts a package store from Section 22.16(a), and if the package store sells any, most, or all of its shares to a corporation that does not itself qualify under Section 22.16(f), will the package store's package store permits remain valid? 2. If yes to (1), can the package store validly accumulate additional package store permits by reason of Section 22.16(f)? View "Gabriel Investment Group, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

D&G, a Medicare service provider for nursing homes and homebound individuals, filed suit against the H.H.S. Secretary in federal court seeking repayment of recouped funds, which then amounted to $4,136,258.19 in principal and $593,294.54 in accrued interest. The district court dismissed D&G's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that there was no federal court jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), as applied to Medicare appeals by 42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)(1)(A).The Fifth Circuit held that "effectuations" of final agency decisions when sought to liquidate the amount of repayment owed, are reviewable under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) as continuous aspects of the initial, properly exhausted, administrative decision. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction under section 405(g) to resolve this dispute because "effectuations" are inextricably intertwined with the initial exhausted agency action. Therefore, the district court committed reversible error when it granted the Secretary' motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the Secretary's attempted reopening of the "effectuation" was untimely and the purported reopening was void ab initio. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "D&G Holdings, LLC v. Becerra" 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

After petitioner was injured on the job while employed by Ameri-Force, he successfully obtained a workers' compensation award after filing a claim with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees under the plain text of 33 U.S.C. 928(b) and reversed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, remanding for further proceedings. In this case, all the criteria of an award of attorney's fees under section 928(b) are satisfied as to the claims examiner's August 24, 2016 recommendation. View "Rivera v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" 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