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

In 2016, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Hinds County, Mississippi, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), alleging unconstitutional conditions in the County’s detention facilities, particularly the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). The DOJ and the County entered into a consent decree to improve conditions, but disputes over compliance led to the DOJ alleging the County's non-compliance and seeking contempt sanctions. The district court found the County in contempt twice and, after a hearing, issued a new, shorter injunction focused on RDC and appointed a receiver to oversee compliance.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi found ongoing constitutional violations at RDC, including inmate violence, inadequate staffing, misuse of force, poor incident reporting, and over-detention. The court declined to terminate the consent decree, instead issuing a new injunction and appointing a receiver to manage RDC. The County appealed the new injunction and the receivership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision to retain most of the injunction’s provisions, finding that the conditions at RDC constituted ongoing constitutional violations. However, the court found that the district court’s need-narrowness-intrusiveness analysis for the receivership was insufficient and that the receiver’s authority over the budget and financial matters was overly broad. The Fifth Circuit reversed the provisions related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and remanded the case for further proceedings to adjust the scope of the receivership and remove the PREA-related provisions. The court affirmed the district court’s decision in all other respects. View "United States v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Luis Alberto Sustaita-Cordova, a Mexican national, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Sustaita-Cordova argued that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his U.S. citizen child, Judith, who has significant hearing loss. He also contended that he had good moral character and that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for administrative closure or a continuance, ignoring his request for a remand to pursue a waiver of inadmissibility, and failing to terminate his removal proceedings due to a deficient Notice to Appear (NTA).The IJ found that Sustaita-Cordova did not meet the requirements for cancellation of removal, specifically failing to demonstrate good moral character and exceptional hardship to his child. The IJ noted his past criminal charge and failure to file taxes as negative factors. The BIA upheld the IJ’s findings and denied administrative closure, citing Sustaita-Cordova’s delay in pursuing a U visa and lack of diligence. The BIA also rejected his argument regarding the deficient NTA, stating that the omission of time and place did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Sustaita-Cordova’s claims regarding administrative closure and a waiver of inadmissibility were moot due to the denial of his U visa application and his removal to Mexico. The court upheld the BIA’s decision on the cancellation of removal, agreeing that Sustaita-Cordova did not demonstrate the required exceptional hardship to his child. The court also affirmed that the deficient NTA did not affect the jurisdiction of the immigration court, following precedent that such deficiencies are claim-processing errors that must be timely raised.The Fifth Circuit denied Sustaita-Cordova’s petition for review. View "Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland" on Justia Law

Marcus McVae was stopped by Texas State Trooper Jesse Perez for a traffic violation. McVae provided a false identity and fled on foot when the officer attempted to detain him. Despite being tased, McVae continued to flee, leading to a physical altercation with Trooper Perez. During the struggle, McVae threw a rock at Perez, who then fatally shot McVae. McVae’s parents sued Perez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Trooper Perez, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court relied on body camera footage to support its decision, concluding that no genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether McVae posed an immediate threat to Perez.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Trooper Perez’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that McVae’s actions, including throwing a rock at Perez, constituted a severe threat, justifying the use of deadly force. The court concluded that Perez did not violate McVae’s Fourth Amendment rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. View "McVae v. Perez" on Justia Law

A group of healthcare and air-ambulance providers challenged certain agency rules regarding the No Surprises Act, which aims to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. The key issues involved the calculation of the "qualifying payment amount" (QPA), deadlines for insurers to respond to provider bills, and disclosure requirements for insurers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed the case and held several provisions of the rules unlawful, vacating them. The court found that the rules conflicted with the Act's terms and were arbitrary and capricious. The defendant agencies appealed the decision regarding certain provisions, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the court's upholding of the disclosure requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's vacatur of the QPA calculation provisions, holding that the rules did not conflict with the Act and were not arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the district court's vacatur of the deadline provision, agreeing that it conflicted with the Act's unambiguous terms. The court also affirmed the district court's decision upholding the disclosure requirements, finding them reasonable and adequately explained.In summary, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the QPA calculation provisions, affirmed the vacatur of the deadline provision, and upheld the disclosure requirements. The court concluded that the proper remedy for the unlawful deadline provision was vacatur, not remand, and rejected the idea of party-specific vacatur. View "Texas Medical Association v. Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

A union representing over 9,000 pilots employed by an airline alleged that the airline violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by intimidating and disciplining pilots who affiliated with the union. The union claimed that the airline had a history of isolating a special category of pilots known as "check pilots" and "standards check pilots," who are responsible for training and evaluating other pilots. The union alleged that the airline unilaterally established working conditions for check pilots without bargaining and that check pilots were threatened with losing their qualifications if they affiliated with the union. The union also claimed that the airline retaliated against a pilot, Captain Timothy Roebling, by stripping him of his check-pilot qualifications after he joined a union committee.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the union's complaint, concluding that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the RLA and that no exception applied to vest the court with jurisdiction. The district court found that the airline had an arguable basis for its actions under the collective bargaining agreement, making the dispute a "minor" one subject to arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the union had sufficiently pleaded the anti-union animus exception to the RLA's arbitration requirement. The court found that the union's allegations, including threats and retaliatory actions against check pilots, supported the claim that the airline's actions were intended to weaken or destroy the union. The court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the union's complaint sufficiently alleged anti-union animus to warrant judicial intervention. View "Southwest Airlines Pilots Assn v. Southwest Airlines" on Justia Law

Memorial Hermann Accountable Care Organization (MHACO), a nonprofit corporation formed under Texas law in 2012, participated in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) as an accountable care organization (ACO). ACOs are groups of healthcare providers that manage and coordinate care for Medicare beneficiaries, potentially sharing in cost savings achieved for the Medicare program. MHACO's patient population includes those covered by MSSP, Medicare Advantage Plans, and employer-sponsored health plans, but it does not provide services for uninsured individuals. The proportion of MHACO’s revenue from MSSP activities varies annually.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a proposed adverse determination letter, concluding that MHACO did not qualify for a tax exemption under I.R.C. § 501(c)(4). The IRS Independent Office of Appeals upheld this determination, stating that MHACO was not organized and operated for promoting social welfare and providing community benefit. MHACO petitioned the United States Tax Court for a declaratory judgment, which upheld the IRS’s determination, finding that MHACO’s non-MSSP activities primarily benefited its commercial payor and healthcare provider participants rather than the public. MHACO’s motions to vacate or revise the judgment were denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the tax court’s judgment, holding that MHACO did not qualify for a § 501(c)(4) tax exemption. The court applied the "substantial nonexempt purpose" test, consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Better Business Bureau of Washington, D.C. v. United States, and found that MHACO’s commercial activities constituted a substantial nonexempt purpose. The court concluded that MHACO’s operations did not exclusively promote social welfare, as required by § 501(c)(4). View "Memorial Hermann Accountable Care Organization v. CIR" on Justia Law

A police officer, David Stanley, was suspended and transferred by the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) following an investigation into his Facebook posts. Stanley took sick leave for about a year and appealed his suspension to the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board. He also filed two petitions in state court seeking to enjoin the suspension and transfer. The state district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), but the state appellate court dismissed LPD’s appeal of the TRO. Stanley re-filed his petition, but the state district court found he needed to finalize his appeal with the Civil Service Board first. The Civil Service Board later reduced his suspension but upheld his transfer.Stanley then filed a lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed his claims as time-barred, determining that the one-year prescriptive period began when Stanley was notified of his suspension on June 11, 2021. The court also concluded that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not assert federal claims or seek monetary damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Stanley’s § 1983 claims accrued when he received notice of the adverse actions, not when the administrative appeal concluded. The court also found that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not provide adequate notice of his federal claims or demand monetary damages. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s claims as prescribed. View "Stanley v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a Mississippi statute that allows absentee ballots to be received up to five days after the federal Election Day. The plaintiffs, including the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party, argued that this state law conflicts with federal statutes that establish a uniform Election Day for federal elections. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing the post-election ballot deadline.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated two lawsuits and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various state election officials. The district court held that Mississippi's statute did not conflict with federal law and thus was not preempted. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the federal Election Day statutes preempt Mississippi's law because federal law mandates that all ballots must be received by Election Day. The court emphasized that the term "election" includes both the casting and receipt of ballots, and that the election is not consummated until all ballots are received. The court also noted that historical practices and other federal statutes support this interpretation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief, considering the proximity to upcoming elections. The court also vacated the district court's summary judgment on the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims and remanded for reconsideration. View "Republican National Committee v. Wetzel" on Justia Law

Alex Francois, a Haitian national, left Haiti in 1979 to reunite with his U.S. citizen father. He has lived in New York City, raised six U.S. citizen children, and suffers from severe mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Francois has been hospitalized multiple times for his mental health and has had several encounters with law enforcement, often related to his mental illness. In 2017, he was arrested for trespassing in Texas, found incompetent to stand trial, and subsequently transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially granted Francois withholding of removal, finding that he would likely be persecuted in Haiti due to his mental illness. The IJ based this decision on expert testimony and country conditions evidence, which highlighted the dire conditions and violent treatment of mentally ill individuals in Haitian prisons. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for further factfinding, questioning whether Francois would be singled out for persecution and whether there was a pattern of persecution against similarly situated individuals.The IJ, on remand, reversed the initial decision, denying Francois's claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that Francois had not proven he would be targeted for persecution in Haiti based on his mental illness. The BIA affirmed this decision, finding no clear error in the IJ's findings. Francois then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit held that the BIA deprived Francois of due process by violating its own regulations, specifically by remanding for further factfinding instead of reviewing the IJ's initial findings for clear error. The court granted Francois's petitions for review, vacated the BIA's orders, and remanded the case for the BIA to review the IJ's initial order under the proper standards of review. View "Francois v. Garland" on Justia Law

In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters, Inc., Eric Hananoki, and Angelo Carusone, alleging interference with X Corp.'s contracts, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. X Corp. claimed that Media Matters manipulated images to portray X Corp. as a platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, which alienated advertisers, publishers, and users. During discovery, X Corp. requested Media Matters to produce documents identifying its donors and communications with them. Media Matters resisted, citing First Amendment concerns.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially ordered Media Matters to log documents responsive to X Corp.'s requests as privileged. However, Media Matters did not comply, arguing that the requests overlapped with other discovery requests. The district court then granted X Corp.'s motion to compel production, ruling that Media Matters had waived any First Amendment privilege by not searching for or logging the documents. Media Matters appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order involved important First Amendment issues that were separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal. The court determined that Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because the discovery requests were not proportional to the needs of the case and posed a significant burden on Media Matters and its donors. Consequently, the court granted Media Matters's motion for a stay pending appeal, staying the district court's order compelling production. View "X Corp v. Media Matters" on Justia Law