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

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming petitioner's removal. Petitioner claims that worsened conditions in her home country, El Salvador, entitle her to remain in the United States. After determining that it has jurisdiction over the petition for review, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner relief on the merits. In this case, the BIA did not need specifically to refute the two Salvadoran officials' belief that the violence at issue arose from a coordinated gang campaign. Nor did the BIA err in applying Singh v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2016). Based on petitioner's scattered anecdotal evidence, the court concluded that the BIA's conclusion that she did not meet the heavy burden of showing changed circumstances was neither irrational nor unsupported by the evidence. View "Martinez-Guevara v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police accountability activist, was arrested on crowded Sixth Street in downtown Austin while "cop watching" (video-recording police activity). After plaintiff and police officers had repeated verbal confrontations about how close to them he was permitted to stand while recording, he was arrested for misdemeanor interference with performance of official duties. Four Austin police officers took plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, with plaintiff suffering minor bruises and lesions as a result.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment as to plaintiff's excessive force claim and affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects. The court held that none of the officers involved in plaintiff's arrest used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that summary judgment for the officers on plaintiff's false arrest claim was proper; the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his First Amendment claim; and his bystander and municipal liability claims fail for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. View "Buehler v. Dear" on Justia Law

This case presents a coda to its companion appeal, No. 20-50671. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's post-judgment order, as modified, charging defendant's membership interest in M. G. & Sons, a single-member LLC, and requiring both defendant and M. G. & Sons to obtain leave of court before transferring assets to third parties. The court stated that it is well established that courts have the power to enforce their judgments through injunctive relief. The court concluded that the district court properly exercised this power, in addition to charging defendant's interest in M. G. & Sons according to Texas law, by restricting Hughes from transferring assets to evade the district court's judgment. View "Thomas v. Hughes" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit slightly modified the district court's final judgment to prevent the possibility of double recovery and otherwise affirmed the district court's final judgment, attorney's fee award, and denial of post-judgment relief on various grounds. The court concluded that the district court did not err in limiting defendant's testimony as it did; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant and Performance Probiotics misappropriated trade secrets; defendant breached her fiduciary duty to PPI; defendant fraudulently transferred assets in violation of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; and to support the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veils of PPI and Performance Probiotics.The court also concluded that the district court did not err by retaining jurisdiction over API or abuse its discretion either in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or in awarding attorney's fees and expenses. The court clarified that the district court's judgment could be read to allow for a duplicative recovery and thus modified the judgment affirmatively to state that plaintiffs may not recover the amount of the Comal County judgment twice. View "Thomas v. Hughes" 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

Continental, an auto-parts supplier, brought suit in the Northern District of California against several standard-essential patent holders and their licensing agent, claiming violations of federal antitrust law and attendant state law. The case was then transferred to federal district court where it was dismissed at the pleadings stage.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. The court concluded that the two theories Continental alleges, based on indemnity obligations and a refusal to license, are inadequate to prove the supplier has Article III standing, let alone that it has antitrust standing or has suffered harm flowing from an antitrust violation. In this case, defendants' harm to Continental on account of Continental's indemnity obligations to original equipment manufacturers remains speculative. Furthermore, the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that Continental's alleged unsuccessful attempts to obtain licenses on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms from defendants comprise an injury in fact conferring Article III standing. View "Continental Automotive Systems v. Avanci, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a sports psychologist, filed suit against the school district for copyright infringement after the softball team and flag corps at a public high school used their Twitter accounts to post a motivational passage from plaintiff's book, Winning Isn’t Normal.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the school district's motion to dismiss and award of attorney's fees. The court considered the four factors of the fair use doctrine and concluded that even though the nature of the work favors plaintiff, the school's use was in good faith and not for a commercial benefit; the small excerpt from the book was freely accessible to the public; and plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a substantially adverse impact on a legitimate market for his copyrighted work. The court concluded that "the purpose and character" factor, as well as "the effect of the use" factor, favor the school district. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees to the school district. View "Bell v. Eagle Mountain Saginaw Independent School District" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the modification of the original judgment against defendant because his exemption from the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) materially changed his economic circumstances pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3664(k). The court need not take a position on the precise standard of review because the modification must be affirmed either way. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to decide which party bears the burden of proof when the government seeks modification under section 3664(k). In this case, the court concluded that the sentencing judges have broad discretion in ordering restitution and are not required to make specific findings on each factor listed in section 3664. The court also concluded that a material change occurred in defendant's economic circumstances when, as a consequence of the California court's habeas judgment, he became exempt from the IFRP and was allowed to keep 100% of his prison wages, as opposed to being required to hand over $30/month toward restitution (the amount prescribed by the prison warden). Moreover, holding that an exemption from the IFRP does not materially change a defendant's economic circumstances would undermine the principles of criminal restitution. View "United States v. Tarnawa" on Justia Law

The emergency-care physician plaintiffs did not participate in the insurance company’s (UHC) provider network. Doctors must serve all patients requiring emergent care regardless of whether their patient is in-network. Texas law requires that emergency-care providers must be paid their “usual and customary rate[s]” for care provided to out-of-network plan enrollees, Tex. Ins. Code 1271.155(a), 1301.0053(a), and 1301.155(b). The Plaintiff-Doctors alleged that UHC violated those statutes. The district court declined to dismiss all of the claims. UHC sought an interlocutory review of whether the statutes include an implied private right of action and, if so, whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts the claims.The Fifth Circuit certified the first issue to the Texas Supreme Court after considering the closeness of the question and the existence of sufficient sources of state law; the relevance of considerations of comity; and practical limitations such as delay and framing the issue to produce a helpful response. The court stated that a court could plausibly read the emergency-care statutes to provide an implied right of action but that a Texas appellate court has found to the contrary. Whether there is an implied private right of action either enables or eliminates thousands of claims; the state of Texas has a strong interest. View "ACS Primary Care Physicians Southwest, P.A. v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co." on Justia Law

One of two reports of an armed confrontation at the Eden Apartments identified one perpetrator as “Thomas Johnson,” who was driving a red truck with rims. Officer Green responded and encountered a stationary red truck near an elementary school, which had been closed for months. When Green exited his car, Johnson stepped out holding a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine. His brother was driving. Johnson ran toward the school. As vehicles passed nearby, Green drew his weapon and yelled, “Drop the gun!” Johnson continued to run, Green fired at him. Green chased Johnson into an open field and continued to chase Johnson, ordering him to drop the gun and instructing onlookers to lie on the ground. Officer McKinney, at the opposite side of the field, saw Johnson outrunning Green. Johnson changed direction toward a neighborhood. Johnson ignored orders to stop. McKinney fired at Johnson, who continued to flee. Both officers gave chase, repeatedly ordering Johnson to stop and drop the gun. When in range, both officers shot. Johnson fell and dropped his gun. Johnson died on the scene.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. The use of deadly force was not constitutionally excessive. The officers could have reasonably believed that Johnson threatened them and others with serious physical harm. View "Wilson v. City of Bastrop" on Justia Law