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

In October 2022, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez Velasquez was found unlawfully present in the United States for the fifth time. Previously, in 2019, he had signed a written stipulation waiving his rights and agreeing to his removal, which led to his deportation. Upon his reentry in 2022, he was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez Velasquez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his waiver of rights in the 2019 removal was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary, making the removal order fundamentally unfair.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied his motion to dismiss, placing the burden on Hernandez Velasquez to prove the invalidity of his waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that he did not meet this burden and also failed to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of § 1326(d)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that when the government produces a written and signed stipulation and waiver, the burden rests on the defendant to prove its invalidity. The court found that the district court's burden allocation was proper and that Hernandez Velasquez's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court also noted that even if the burden had been on the government, the outcome would not have changed, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the validity of the waiver. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez Velasquez" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Texas House Bill 20 (H.B. 20) by NetChoice, L.L.C. and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). The plaintiffs argue that H.B. 20, which regulates content moderation by social media platforms, violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court previously emphasized that facial challenges to state laws, especially under the First Amendment, require a thorough exploration of both the law's unconstitutional and constitutional applications. The Supreme Court found the record in this case to be underdeveloped, necessitating further factual discovery to determine who and what activities are covered by H.B. 20 and how these activities burden expression.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court largely agreed with the plaintiffs that the issues were purely legal questions and required the State of Texas to complete discovery in a short period to avoid burdening the plaintiffs. The district court blocked extensive discovery, which the Supreme Court later indicated was necessary for a proper evaluation of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions. The district court must now determine the full range of activities covered by H.B. 20, identify the actors involved, and assess how content moderation decisions burden expression. The district court must also separately consider the individualized-explanation provisions of H.B. 20 and evaluate whether these provisions unduly burden expressive activity. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs bear the burden of developing a factual record to support their facial challenge to H.B. 20. The case is remanded for further factual development and analysis. View "NetChoice v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Cedric Allen Ricks was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court for killing his girlfriend and her eight-year-old son and was sentenced to death. After his direct appeal and state habeas petition were denied, Ricks filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also denied, including a certificate of appealability (COA).Ricks sought a COA from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on several claims. The district court had denied his Batson claim, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and accepting the prosecution's race-neutral justifications. The district court also found no pattern of racially disparate questioning. The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, and thus denied the COA on this claim.Ricks also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the Batson claim on appeal. The state court had denied this claim on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found that since the Batson claim was meritless, the appellate counsel's failure to raise it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial, and denied the COA on this claim as well.Ricks argued that his due process rights were violated when the jury saw him in shackles. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Ricks exposed his shackles himself and failed to show any substantial influence on the jury's verdict. The Fifth Circuit found this claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on direct appeal and was barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, no COA was issued for this claim.Lastly, Ricks claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to the shackling and for not challenging the State's peremptory strikes against female venire members. The Fifth Circuit found the trial counsel's decisions reasonable and strategic, and thus denied the COA on these claims.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a COA on all claims. View "Ricks v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Benjamin Benfer and his wife were pulled over by Officer Barry Calvert for allegedly running a red light and because their vehicle matched the description of a stolen car. A confrontation ensued, during which Calvert used his K-9 to subdue Benfer. Both Benfer and his wife were arrested and charged with resisting arrest and interference with public duties, but the charges were later dismissed.Benfer filed a lawsuit against Calvert and the City of Baytown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, claiming violations of his constitutional rights and state tort claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, ruling that Calvert did not violate Benfer’s constitutional rights, that Benfer’s state tort claims were not valid under Texas law, and that Benfer did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Calvert had reasonable suspicion to stop Benfer, probable cause to arrest him for resisting arrest, and did not use excessive force in deploying his K-9. The court also found that Benfer’s state law assault claim against Calvert was barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act, which requires such claims to be brought against the municipality, not the individual officer. Additionally, the court ruled that Benfer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims against the City of Baytown for inadequate policies, failure to train, and ratification of Calvert’s conduct. View "Benfer v. City of Baytown" on Justia Law

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