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

Michelle Evans attended a debate at the Texas Capitol in May 2023 regarding gender reassignment treatments for children. While at the Capitol, Evans encountered a transgender politician in the women’s restroom. A photo of this individual washing their hands was posted to Facebook by someone in Evans’s group, and Evans subsequently tweeted the same photo with a caption expressing her belief that the politician should not have used the women’s restroom. The tweet led to controversy and an investigation by the Department of Public Safety, prompted by Travis County District Attorney José Garza, to determine if Evans’s actions violated Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b), which prohibits transmitting images of individuals in bathrooms or changing rooms without consent and with intent to invade privacy.Evans sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, aiming to prevent Garza from investigating or prosecuting her for disseminating the photograph. She argued that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to her conduct, citing First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court denied her requests for injunctive relief, reasoning that the equities weighed against granting the injunction, and that the values underlying abstention doctrines informed its decision. The court found no ongoing state judicial proceeding that would trigger abstention and did not make explicit findings on the likelihood of success on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Evans had standing but agreed that she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms justified injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the statute was not facially unconstitutional and that Evans had not shown it was unconstitutional as applied to her situation. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Evans v. Garza" on Justia Law

This case concerns a contractual dispute between two companies engaged in the purchase and sale of natural gas. In 2010, the parties entered into a base contract using a standard industry form that governed their future transactions, with specific delivery obligations detailed in transaction confirmations executed in October 2020. Under these confirmations, one party was required to deliver fixed and variable amounts of gas to the other at agreed prices. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, significant disruptions in natural gas supply occurred, and the seller delivered far less gas than contracted over a six-day period. The seller invoked the contract’s force majeure provision, citing weather-related supply loss and declarations by its affiliates. The buyer, however, disputed the sufficiency and applicability of this claim, asserting the seller could have obtained gas from other sources.After the seller initiated a declaratory judgment action in Texas state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the seller, holding that force majeure excused its nonperformance, and found the contract did not require the purchase of replacement gas. The question of how to allocate delivered gas between the two contracts (with differing prices) went to a jury, which found for the buyer, concluding that available gas should be allocated first to the fixed-price contract.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment on force majeure, finding factual disputes about the seller’s gas supply and its reasonable efforts to avoid nonperformance. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict regarding allocation, holding that trade usage could supplement the contract and sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding. The case was remanded for further proceedings on force majeure. View "MIECO v. Targa Gas Marketing" on Justia Law

A young man named Christoffer suffered a severe spinal cord injury in a friend’s home after ingesting what he believed to be LSD and a THC gummy. The incident occurred after he fell off a bed, followed by several hours during which he received no medical attention. Later, he was moved by his friends without stabilizing his neck or spine, which medical testimony suggested may have contributed to the severity of his injury, ultimately leaving him a quadriplegic. The circumstances involved both the use of alleged controlled substances and subsequent actions by others in the house.Christoffer and his family sued the homeowner’s son in Texas state court, prompting Occidental Fire & Casualty Company, the homeowner’s insurer, to seek a declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, arguing that their policy excluded coverage for injuries arising from the use of controlled substances. The parties settled the state lawsuit and stipulated that the sole fact issue for the federal jury was whether Christoffer’s injuries “arose out of the use by any person” of a controlled substance, as defined by federal law.The jury in the district court found that Christoffer’s injuries did not arise out of the use of a controlled substance, indicating that the policy exclusion did not apply. However, the district judge set aside the jury’s verdict and granted judgment as a matter of law for Occidental, concluding the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred, as there was a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find that the injury did not arise from drug use. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and reinstated the jury’s verdict in favor of coverage. View "Occidental Fire v. Cox" on Justia Law

A group of Texas hospitals challenged a 2023 regulation issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The regulation excluded certain patients, who received benefits under Texas’s uncompensated care pool demonstration project, from the Medicaid fraction calculation for Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. This change threatened to reduce the hospitals’ Medicare DSH payments and make some hospitals ineligible for the 340B drug discount program, which relies on the DSH percentage.The hospitals initially sought a hearing before the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB), arguing the new regulation was unlawful. The PRRB determined it lacked jurisdiction because there was no “final determination” regarding a specific hospital’s payment amount, as required for PRRB review. The hospitals then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which reached the merits, granted summary judgment for the hospitals, and vacated the regulation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit held that claims arising under the Medicare statute must first be presented to the agency for a “final decision” before judicial review is available, consistent with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because the hospitals had not presented their claims through the required administrative process—specifically, by submitting cost reports and receiving a final reimbursement determination—they failed to satisfy the nonwaivable presentment requirement. The court also rejected the argument that the channeling requirement did not apply or that it amounted to a complete preclusion of judicial review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. View "Baylor All Saints Med Ctr v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on insurance policies purchased by several Louisiana public entities, including the Town of Vinton, from a group of foreign and American insurers. The policies included an arbitration clause and a contract endorsement stating that each policy is a “separate contract” between the insured and each insurer. After alleged breaches, the insured entities sued all participating insurers in Louisiana state court. Subsequently, the insureds dismissed the foreign insurers with prejudice, leaving only American insurers as defendants.Following the dismissal of the foreign insurers, the remaining American insurers removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They sought to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court denied these motions, holding that the contract endorsement created separate agreements between each insurer and the insured, and, since the foreign insurers were no longer parties, no agreement involved a non-American party. The court also rejected the American insurers’ equitable estoppel argument, finding it precluded by Louisiana law, which expressly bars arbitration clauses in insurance contracts covering property in the state.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Convention does not apply because no foreign party remains in any agreement to arbitrate. The court further concluded that Louisiana law prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses in these insurance contracts and that equitable estoppel cannot override this prohibition. Lastly, the court determined that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement could not be enforced because Louisiana law prevents the valid formation of an arbitration agreement in this context. View "Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor" on Justia Law

Alberto Alvarado was employed through a temporary staffing agency and assigned to Jacintoport International, L.L.C. (JPI) for work as a longshoreman at the Port of Houston. On December 12, 2020, while descending a ladder into the cargo hold of the BBC Sapphire, a ship owned and operated by Briese Schiffahrts entities, Alvarado slipped due to poor lighting and condensation, falling about fifteen feet and sustaining serious injuries. Alvarado asserted that neither the ship’s crew nor JPI provided adequate warnings or instructions regarding the ladder’s condition and configuration.After the accident, Alvarado filed suit in state court against the BBC Sapphire’s owner/operator and JPI, alleging negligence and gross negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The BBC Sapphire moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of a breached duty under the LHWCA, while JPI argued that as Alvarado’s borrowing employer, its provision of workers’ compensation barred his negligence claim. The district court granted both motions for summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Alvarado failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact regarding the shipowner’s breach of the LHWCA’s turnover or active-control duties, as the hazards were either open and obvious or not under the shipowner’s active control at the relevant time. The court also concluded that JPI was Alvarado’s borrowing employer as a matter of law and, having secured workers’ compensation coverage for him, was shielded from negligence liability by the LHWCA’s exclusive-remedy provision. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of both defendants. View "Alvarado v. Briese Schiffahrts" on Justia Law

Christopher Kirchner, the founder and CEO of a Dallas-based logistics software startup, raised substantial funds from investors over several rounds of stock offerings. While some of these funds were used for legitimate business expenses, Kirchner misappropriated millions for personal use, including luxury purchases such as private jet charters and stadium suites. To secure additional investments and conceal his misuse of earlier funds, Kirchner made false statements about the company’s financial health and fabricated documents. When the company began missing payroll, he launched another unauthorized funding round and continued his pattern of deception. Eventually, internal scrutiny and investor complaints led to his suspension and termination, and the company was forced to liquidate.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas presided over Kirchner’s trial, where a jury convicted him on four counts of wire fraud and seven counts of money laundering. The district court sentenced him to 240 months in prison and issued a Presentence Report applying the money-laundering Guideline with an abuse-of-trust enhancement, resulting in a higher offense level. Kirchner appealed, arguing that the district court’s questioning of witnesses showed judicial bias, that there was insufficient evidence to support two wire fraud convictions, and that there were errors in the sentencing calculations, including the application of the abuse-of-trust enhancement and the calculation of loss amounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court’s questioning did not amount to plain error or violate due process, as its interventions were limited and the jury received proper instructions. The evidence was sufficient to support all convictions, including the challenged wire fraud counts. The court also affirmed the sentencing approach, concluding that the abuse-of-trust enhancement properly applied and that the loss calculation was reasonable. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Kirchner’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Kirchner" on Justia Law

In this matter, a relator initially brought claims under the False Claims Act against a group of defendants for fraudulent conduct, later joined by the United States. After years of litigation, the district court imposed a receivership over the defendants’ assets and ultimately entered a large monetary judgment against them. The defendants satisfied the reduced judgment following an appeal, but the receivership remained active to resolve additional matters, including a claim by the Estate of Robert Johnson. Johnson had obtained a $200,000 wrongful death judgment in state court against a receivership entity and sought to intervene in the federal court to enforce the judgment, as the receivership order prevented execution in state court.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted Johnson’s motion to intervene, subsequently granting summary judgment in his favor and directing payment of the state court judgment. The defendants appealed the order granting intervention before the district court had resolved their motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order. The district court’s intervention order was a preliminary step in addressing Johnson’s claim, not a final resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over the defendants’ interlocutory appeal from the order granting intervention. Citing established precedent, the Fifth Circuit determined that orders permitting intervention are generally not immediately appealable, as they are procedural steps toward a later final judgment on the intervenor’s claim. The court concluded that the intervention order was not a final, appealable order and that the appeal was premature. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s holding is that an order granting intervention, when not resolving the merits of the intervenor’s claim, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. View "Johnson v. Stone County" on Justia Law

Jet Oilfield Services was formed in 2018 by three individuals, with Brian Owen later acquiring a substantial membership interest. Jet’s governing agreement required Owen to obtain consent from at least one other member before entering transactions on Jet’s behalf. In 2022, Owen signed an agreement with Spin Capital, L.L.C., under which Jet would sell $4,500,000 of future receivables for $3,000,000. Spin attempted to confirm Owen’s authority by reviewing Jet’s bank statements and tax returns, noting Owen’s access to the company’s accounts and his designation as “Partnership Representative” and “General Partner or LLC member-manager,” though the tax return was unsigned by a member-manager. Jet subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Spin filed a proof of claim based on this agreement and pursued related litigation.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas held a trial on Jet’s counterclaims against Spin. The court found that Owen lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind Jet in the Spin Agreement and that Jet received no consideration for the contract. As a result, the bankruptcy court determined Spin’s claim was unenforceable. Spin appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, the district court dismissed the appeal for an insufficient record but later reinstated it, allowing supplemental briefing. When Spin declined to submit further briefing, the district court dismissed the appeal with prejudice.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied clear error review to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and de novo review to its legal conclusions. The Fifth Circuit held that Owen did not have apparent authority to bind Jet, as Jet’s member-managers did not hold him out as an agent, and Spin’s reliance on Owen’s asserted authority was unreasonable. The court thus affirmed the judgment, holding that Spin’s claim against Jet was unenforceable. View "Spin Capital v. Jet Oilfield" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Mexico entered the United States in 2016 and, in 2024, pleaded guilty to eight criminal offenses in New Mexico, including child abuse and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The child abuse conviction was based on an incident in which he punched a child in the lip. The aggregate sentence for all convictions was approximately 21.5 years. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his child abuse conviction qualified as a removable offense under federal law, and that the aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony.An Immigration Judge denied the petitioner’s motion to terminate the proceedings, sustaining both charges of removability. The petitioner’s counsel declined to seek any further relief from removal, reserving only the right to appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals considered the case next, focusing on whether the New Mexico child abuse statute fit the federal definition of a removable “crime of child abuse.” Applying the categorical approach, the Board concluded that the statute matched the federal standard and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, not addressing the aggravated assault conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that the petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that New Mexico would apply its child abuse statute in a way broader than the federal definition. The court also determined that the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of whether his aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony, because he had multiple convictions with aggregate sentences exceeding five years within seven years of his admission as a permanent resident. Finding no basis for remand or relief, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santiago v. Bondi" on Justia Law