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

Robert Miller was arrested on July 31, 2019, and died the next day while in custody at the Tarrant County Jail. His wife, Shanelle Jenkins, was not notified by authorities of his death but learned about it several days later through a newspaper article. Jenkins alleges that, despite making several direct requests, she was unable to obtain information from Tarrant County or the Texas Rangers about the circumstances of her husband’s death. Nearly two years after Miller’s death, Jenkins filed a lawsuit against the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff, alleging wrongful death and excessive force, but her complaint lacked specific factual allegations about how Miller died.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Jenkins’s federal claims with prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. After the dismissal, Jenkins received documents from Tarrant County and the Texas Department of Public Safety that provided more details about Miller’s death. She sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but the district court denied her motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Jenkins had not exercised due diligence in investigating her claims and that the evidence was not intentionally withheld.Jenkins then filed a new lawsuit on November 30, 2023, against ten individual defendants, asserting similar claims but with more detailed factual allegations. The district court again dismissed her claims, holding they were barred by Texas’s two-year statute of limitations and that equitable tolling did not apply because Jenkins failed to allege fraudulent concealment by the named defendants and did not exercise due diligence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Jenkins’s claims accrued in August 2019 and were time-barred, and that equitable tolling was not warranted. View "Jenkins v. Tahmahkera" on Justia Law

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" on Justia Law

The case concerns the parents of a pre-kindergarten student who alleged that their daughter was sexually abused by a substitute teacher at Lorena Primary School during the 2020-2021 academic year. Multiple school employees reported the teacher’s inappropriate behavior—such as allowing the child to sit on his lap, wear his clothes, and lie under a blanket with him—to the school principal, April Jewell. Despite these reports, Jewell did not investigate, warn the teacher, inform the child’s parents, or report the conduct to law enforcement. Instead, she reprimanded staff who raised concerns and reassigned a vigilant aide, which may have increased the child’s exposure to the abuser. The abuse continued throughout the school year, culminating in the teacher’s arrest, conviction, and lengthy prison sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the parents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the child’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. The district court denied Jewell’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Jewell was deliberately indifferent to a known risk of sexual abuse and that her inaction caused the child’s injuries. Jewell appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, would establish that Jewell violated clearly established constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to repeated reports of sexual misconduct, thereby causing the child’s injuries. The court also found that Jewell’s conduct could be considered conscience-shocking under substantive due process standards. Accordingly, the denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. View "Doe v. Jewell" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a rule permitting remote voting and proxy participation, allowing Members to be counted as present for quorum purposes even if not physically on the House floor. Using this procedure, the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, with a majority of votes cast by proxy. The Act was subsequently passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. The State of Texas challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act, arguing that the Constitution’s Quorum Clause required a physical majority of Members to be present in the House chamber for business to be conducted.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held a bench trial and found that Texas had standing to challenge the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a provision of the omnibus legislation. The district court concluded that the enrolled-bill rule, which generally bars courts from questioning the validity of a law based on legislative procedure, did not apply to this constitutional challenge. On the merits, the district court determined that the Quorum Clause required physical presence and enjoined enforcement of the challenged provision against Texas.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction. The Fifth Circuit held that the enrolled-bill rule did not bar judicial review of Texas’s constitutional claim because the facts were undisputed and the challenge was purely legal. The court then concluded that the Quorum Clause does not require physical presence, relying on the constitutional text, Supreme Court precedent, and historical congressional practice. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the permanent injunction, holding that the House’s proxy-voting rule did not violate the Quorum Clause. View "State of Texas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A white male lieutenant who had worked for the Louisiana State Police since 1995 applied for promotion to captain 31 times between 2008 and 2021 but was never selected. He alleged that, on at least two occasions, he was the most qualified candidate but was passed over in favor of non-white applicants. The two specific promotions at issue involved positions in specialized divisions where the selected candidates, both non-white, had prior experience in those divisions, while the plaintiff did not. The plaintiff claimed he had higher test scores, more time in grade, and more commendations than the selected candidates. Instead of promotion, he was offered opportunities to gain broader experience and interview advice, but he chose to retire and then filed suit alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as constructive discharge and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the § 1981, constructive discharge, and retaliation claims, finding the § 1981 claim time-barred by Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations for such actions. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the Title VII claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to rebut the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its promotion decisions—namely, the selected candidates’ relevant experience in the specific divisions. The court found no evidence that race was a motivating factor in the decisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext or mixed-motive discrimination under Title VII. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1981 claim, agreeing that the one-year limitations period applied because the promotion would have created a new and distinct employment relationship. View "Stelly v. Dept of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a machinegun, both federal offenses. His sentence was calculated using a higher base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because of a prior Louisiana armed robbery conviction, which the district court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this classification at sentencing but later argued on appeal that Louisiana armed robbery, as a general intent crime, should not qualify as a crime of violence under the Guidelines. He also contended that the district court’s written judgment conflicted with its oral pronouncement regarding special conditions of supervised release and the crediting of presentence detention time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana accepted the presentence investigation report’s calculation, which set the base offense level at 22, resulting in a sentencing range of 57 to 71 months. The court sentenced the defendant to 71 months. The defendant did not object to the Guidelines calculation or the written judgment at the time of sentencing. On appeal, he raised these issues for the first time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sentencing calculation for plain error and found no clear or obvious error in classifying Louisiana armed robbery as a crime of violence under the Guidelines, given the current state of the law. The court affirmed the district court’s base offense level determination. However, the appellate court found that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding special conditions of supervised release and the treatment of presentence detention credit. The court remanded the case to the district court to modify the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement and to clarify its intent regarding credit for time served before sentencing. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Evan Norman visited a bar where he consumed several alcoholic drinks and fell asleep. At the request of the establishment, Deputy Ingle removed Norman and instructed him to go home, warning that he could be arrested for public intoxication. Norman repeatedly asked for the deputies’ names and badge numbers and made comments to them. As the deputies returned to the bar, Norman followed and continued to engage with them. The situation escalated when Norman reached over Deputy Sutton’s arm and pointed at Deputy Ingle, leading to physical shoving. Norman then attempted to punch Deputy Ingle and placed him in a headlock. In response, the deputies used force to subdue Norman, including multiple punches to his head. Norman was arrested and left facedown for about ten minutes while awaiting medical assistance, during which he suffered significant facial injuries.Norman filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the deputies and others, alleging excessive force, denial of medical care, failure to intervene, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment violations. The district court dismissed claims against the county and sheriff but allowed claims against the deputies to proceed. The deputies moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the use of force, resistance, and medical care, and ruled that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo, considering video evidence of the incident. The court held that the video evidence resolved any material factual disputes and showed that the deputies’ actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court found the use of force reasonable under the circumstances, no denial of medical care, and no basis for failure to intervene or other claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Norman v. Ingle" on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Brewster County, Texas, observed a pickup truck towing a horse trailer near a border patrol checkpoint during a shift change—a time and place known for smuggling activity. The deputy recognized the driver, who had previously been identified as a possible smuggler. Without being signaled or ordered, the driver pulled over to the shoulder, and the deputy parked behind him. During a casual conversation, the deputy noticed an open alcohol container in the truck. The driver gave inconsistent and suspicious answers about the trailer’s contents and ownership, and after further questioning, eventually admitted that there were people hidden in the locked compartment of the trailer. The deputy then discovered three undocumented immigrants inside.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the defendant had been seized with reasonable suspicion and that his consent to search the trailer attenuated any taint from the deputy’s actions. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. It found that the initial encounter was consensual, that the deputy’s actions did not constitute a seizure until reasonable suspicion had developed, and that the deputy’s incidental contact with the truck did not amount to a trespassory search. The court also determined that the discovery of the open alcohol container was lawful and that the subsequent evidence was not subject to suppression. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Larremore" on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

Two insurance companies entered into a quota share reinsurance agreement in 2014, under which one company (the reinsurer) agreed to indemnify the other (the reinsured) for a portion of claims arising from short-term medical insurance policies. The agreement required the reinsured to provide prompt notice to the reinsurer of any claims that might result in a covered loss and developments that could materially affect the reinsurer’s position. In 2017, the reinsured was sued in Montana by policyholders alleging underpayment of claims, and the litigation later expanded into a class action. The reinsured did not notify the reinsurer of the lawsuit until after the district court had entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, certified the class, and the Ninth Circuit denied interlocutory appeal. The reinsured eventually settled the case for $8 million and sought indemnification from the reinsurer, which was refused on grounds of late notice.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with the parties’ consent, ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the reinsured, holding that the notice provision in the reinsurance treaty was triggered only by the reinsured’s subjective belief that a claim might arise, and that the reinsurer had not shown evidence of the reinsured’s subjective intent. Alternatively, the court found that even if there was a breach, the reinsurer was not prejudiced by the late notice and remained obligated to indemnify, including for attorneys’ fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the notice provision required an objective standard—what a reasonable reinsured would believe might result in a claim—rather than a purely subjective belief. The court found that the reinsured’s notice was unreasonably late as a matter of law and that this delay materially prejudiced the reinsurer by depriving it of its contractual right to participate in the defense. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the reinsurer was absolved of its duty to indemnify due to the material breach. View "US Fire Ins v. Unified Life Ins" on Justia Law