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

In 2015, bipartisan legislation repealed the U.S. ban on crude oil exports, leading to expanded efforts to export U.S. crude oil. This case involves an administrative challenge to a construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for expanding operations at the Moda Ingleside Crude Export Terminal in Texas. The expansion includes constructing new docks and a turning basin, requiring dredging and discharging material into U.S. waters. The Corps conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and approved the permit. Plaintiffs, including Native American tribes and an environmental association, sued to invalidate the permit, claiming violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment for the Corps, concluding that the Corps had adequately studied the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion. The court found that plaintiffs had associational standing but had waived certain claims by not raising them in summary judgment briefing. The court also found that plaintiffs forfeited claims related to increased vessel traffic by not raising them during the notice-and-comment period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its environmental impacts analysis, including its assessment of cumulative impacts and climate change. The court found that the Corps's EA was sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. The court also agreed that plaintiffs had forfeited arguments related to increased vessel traffic. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Indigenous Peoples v. U.S. Army" on Justia Law

In 2010, Thomas Steven Sanders kidnapped and murdered a twelve-year-old girl, L.R., after killing her mother, Suellen Roberts. Sanders was apprehended and confessed to the crimes. He was prosecuted under federal law and, in 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana convicted him of kidnapping and murder, sentencing him to death on both counts.Sanders appealed, raising numerous challenges to his convictions and sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Sanders argued that the district court erred by not ordering a competency hearing, denying his motion to suppress statements made during interrogation, and violating the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing two sentences for one act. He also challenged the jury selection process, the death-qualification of the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA).The Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency hearing or in denying the motion to suppress. However, the court agreed with Sanders that his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as Congress did not authorize cumulative punishment for violations of § 1201(a) and § 924(j). Consequently, the court vacated Sanders’s conviction and sentence under Count Two of the indictment.The court rejected Sanders’s other arguments, including those related to jury selection, death-qualification, sufficiency of the evidence, victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the FDPA. The court concluded that Sanders’s sentences were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor and that the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Jeremy Jason Schnur, previously convicted of multiple felonies including aggravated battery, burglary, and robbery, was indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Schnur was apprehended by law enforcement at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, where he was found in possession of a loaded Canik 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Schnur moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him. The district court denied his motion, and after a bench trial, found him guilty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Schnur's motion to dismiss the indictment. Schnur waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial based on stipulations regarding his possession of the firearm and his felony convictions. The district court found Schnur guilty and sentenced him to seventy-eight months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $3,000 fine. Schnur appealed the decision, maintaining his as-applied Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo. The court held that the Second Amendment's plain text covers Schnur's conduct, but the government demonstrated that disarming Schnur is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court cited precedents indicating that individuals with violent criminal histories, like Schnur's aggravated battery conviction, can be constitutionally disarmed. The court also referenced Schnur's robbery and burglary convictions, which further supported the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in Schnur's case. View "United States v. Schnur" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address interstate air pollution. The EPA disapproved these SIPs, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision, which mandates that states prevent their emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of national air quality standards in downwind states.The lower courts had not previously reviewed this case. The case was directly brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the petitioners sought to vacate the EPA's disapprovals. The petitioners argued that the EPA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the CAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitions for review from Louisiana and Texas, finding that the EPA's disapprovals were justified based on the states' own data and interpretations of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court concluded that the EPA had reasonably considered the relevant issues and provided adequate explanations for its decisions.However, the court granted the petition for review from Mississippi, vacated the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP, and remanded the matter to the EPA. The court found that the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on updated data that was not available to Mississippi at the time of its SIP submission. The court held that the EPA failed to reasonably explain its decision to use this updated data in an outcome-determinative manner. View "Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Ellen Williams purchased a residential property in Houma, Louisiana, which was mortgaged by Flagstar Bank. Since Williams did not insure the home, Flagstar obtained a lender-placed hazard insurance policy from Integon National Insurance Company at Williams's expense. The policy named Flagstar as the "Insured" and Williams as the "Borrower." Williams paid all premiums and complied with all policy requirements. The policy included a provision stating that if the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, Integon would pay Williams any residual amount due for the loss, not exceeding the policy limit.In August 2021, Williams's home was damaged by Hurricane Ida. Although Integon inspected the property and exchanged repair estimates with Williams, it ultimately refused to pay for the full property repairs. Williams sued Integon in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, asserting breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims under Louisiana law. Integon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Williams lacked standing to sue under the policy. The district court agreed with Integon, ruling that Williams was not a named insured, additional insured, or third-party beneficiary, and dismissed the case without allowing Williams to amend her complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the policy's loss payment provision clearly manifested an intent to benefit Williams, provided a certain benefit when the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, and that this benefit was not merely incidental. The court held that Williams might be able to plead plausible facts supporting her status as a third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to allow Williams to amend her complaint. View "Williams v. Integon National Insurance" on Justia Law

Trevor Dylan Lehew pleaded guilty to Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal, with certain exceptions. Lehew challenged a $5,000 special assessment imposed under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, arguing that the appeal waiver did not apply because he was indigent and that the special assessment exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas accepted Lehew's guilty plea and sentenced him to 420 months of imprisonment, a $100 special assessment, the $5,000 JVTA special assessment, and supervised release. The court did not explicitly discuss Lehew's indigency during the sentencing hearing but adopted the presentence investigation report (PSR), which detailed Lehew's financial situation and potential future earnings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Lehew argued that the district court erred by imposing the JVTA special assessment without determining his indigency and that his appeal waiver did not bar this challenge. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the appeal waiver barred Lehew's challenge. The court noted that the district court implicitly found Lehew to be non-indigent by adopting the PSR, which included information about his financial history and future earning potential. The court held that the district court conducted the requisite analysis by adopting the PSR and that Lehew's appeal waiver expressly waived any challenges to the determination of any monetary penalty or obligation.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Lehew could not appeal the JVTA special assessment as a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and that his appeal waiver barred his appeal. View "United States v. Lehew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Perry Spriggs was struck by a U.S. Postal Service vehicle while riding his bicycle on Calliope Street in New Orleans on March 23, 2022. On March 23, 2023, Spriggs faxed his medical records and a signed Standard Form 95 (SF-95) to the Postal Service, addressed to Tara D. Lennix, a Louisiana District Tort Claims/Collections Specialist, at the correct fax number. Spriggs received a fax confirmation stating successful transmission. On March 22, 2024, Spriggs filed a lawsuit against the United States for personal injury and property damage from the accident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Spriggs’s claims with prejudice, granting the United States' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found no affirmative evidence of receipt of the SF-95 by the Postal Service, relying on declarations from Postal Service employees stating they did not receive the fax. The court also dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) due to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for presentment to the agency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in disregarding the fax confirmation sheet as probative evidence of presentment under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Fifth Circuit held that a fax confirmation sheet indicating successful transmission to the correct recipient is probative evidence that the FTCA’s presentment requirement has been satisfied. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Spriggs v. United States" on Justia Law

Texas Game Warden Dustin Delgado arrested Joshua McClain for driving while intoxicated after observing his truck swerve and conducting field sobriety tests. McClain later sued Delgado for false arrest. The district court denied Delgado qualified immunity. However, because McClain did not carry his burden to show Delgado violated his constitutional rights, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. Delgado moved for summary judgment on both the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion for the malicious prosecution claim but denied it for the false arrest claim. Delgado appealed the denial of qualified immunity for the false arrest claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Delgado had reasonable suspicion to stop McClain based on his swerving and probable cause to arrest him after observing clues of intoxication during field sobriety tests. The court found that McClain did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Delgado's conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's denial of Delgado's motion for summary judgment, granting Delgado qualified immunity. View "McClain v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Three Coast Guard servicemembers, Eric Jackson, Alaric Stone, and Michael Marcenelle, objected to a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security. Their requests for religious accommodations were denied, and they faced reprimands for refusing the vaccination. They filed a class action lawsuit against the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources, alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case as moot after the Department of Defense rescinded its vaccination mandate, and the Coast Guard followed suit. The Plaintiffs' motion for relief from final judgment was also denied, leading to their appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo. The appellate court found that the case was not moot because the Coast Guard had not issued policies protecting unvaccinated servicemembers from discrimination, unlike the Navy, which had implemented such protections. The court noted that the Plaintiffs could still face adverse actions based on their vaccination status and that a court order could provide effective relief. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Noem" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P., a Dallas-based investment firm, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to numerous unpaid judgments and liabilities. During the bankruptcy proceedings, James Dondero, a co-founder, stepped down as a director and officer but continued as an unpaid portfolio manager. The unsecured creditors' committee and independent directors opposed Dondero's reorganization plans, leading to his resignation in October 2020. The bankruptcy court held Dondero in civil contempt and sanctioned him for obstructing the proceedings. The proposed reorganization plan included provisions to shield Highland Capital and associated entities from liability, including an Exculpation Provision and an Injunction Provision with a Gatekeeper Clause.The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, but on direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the plan in part, striking certain non-debtors from the Exculpation Provision. The investment fund parties requested clarification on whether the same entities should be removed from the Gatekeeper Clause. The bankruptcy court conformed the plan by narrowing the definition of "Exculpated Parties" but did not change the definition of "Protected Parties" in the Gatekeeper Clause, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the bankruptcy court failed to implement its instructions properly. The court held that the definition of "Protected Parties" in the Gatekeeper Clause must be narrowed to include only the Debtor, the Independent Directors for conduct within their duties, the Committee, and the members of the Committee in their official capacities. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision in part and remanded the case for the plan to be revised accordingly. View "Highland Capital Fund Advisors v. Highland Capital Management" on Justia Law