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

Ruel M. Hamilton, a real estate developer in Dallas, Texas, was involved in efforts to place a paid sick leave ordinance on the ballot. He was asked by Councilman Philip Kingston to speak with Councilman Dwaine Caraway to persuade the Mayor to put the ordinance on the City Council’s agenda. Unbeknownst to Hamilton, Caraway was cooperating with the FBI. During a recorded meeting, Hamilton offered to help Caraway financially, and Caraway mentioned needing $6,200. Hamilton then wrote Caraway a check for $7,000.A grand jury indicted Hamilton on four counts, including bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) and a Travel Act violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). The jury convicted Hamilton of the bribery charge but acquitted him of the Travel Act charge. Hamilton appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed that the bribery charge required proof of a quid pro quo bribe. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case. The Government decided to retry the bribery charge, but Hamilton moved to dismiss, claiming double jeopardy and collateral estoppel. The district court denied his motion, stating that the two charges involved different conduct and elements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Hamilton did not meet the burden of proving that the jury in the first trial necessarily decided that the check was not a quid pro quo bribe. The court noted that the jury could have acquitted Hamilton on the Travel Act charge based on his lack of specific intent during the August 2 phone call, rather than on the nature of the check given on August 3. Therefore, the retrial of the bribery charge did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Steve Winder became suicidal after discovering Facebook messages between his wife and her ex-husband. His wife, Latrisha, who was out of state, called her mother, Lou Anne, and the Young County Sheriff’s Department for a welfare check after Steve sent pictures of himself holding a gun to his head. Deputy Joshua Gallardo arrived at the scene, and after hearing Steve shout from within, opened the front door. Lou Anne indicated that Steve was armed. Deputy Gallardo then fatally shot Steve after ordering him to put the gun down.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The court found that Steve’s suicidality and possession of a gun created exigent circumstances excusing the need for a warrant. It also ruled that an objectively reasonable officer in Deputy Gallardo’s position would not need to wait for Steve to point the gun at him before using deadly force, thus defeating the excessive force claim. Additionally, the court found no underlying constitutional violation to support claims for supervisory or Monell liability and ruled that Title II of the ADA does not support claims where police officers face exigent circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and that Deputy Gallardo’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no basis for supervisory or Monell liability due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. Lastly, the court ruled that the ADA claims were foreclosed by the exigent circumstances and that there was no evidence that Steve was discriminated against by reason of his disability. View "Winder v. Gallardo" on Justia Law

Kenneth Bryan Ritchey, the defendant, operated Gulf Coast Pharmaceuticals Plus, LLC, a wholesale distributor of pharmaceutical products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ritchey directed his employees to acquire large quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE) and resell them at inflated prices to various healthcare providers, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA was charged significantly higher prices than the market value, resulting in Ritchey and his company receiving over $2 million, including more than $270,000 from the VA.Ritchey was charged with six counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. He pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi calculated Ritchey’s offense level based on the estimated pecuniary loss caused by his actions, which included a significant enhancement for the amount of loss. The court determined the fair market value (FMV) of the PPE based on pre-pandemic prices and 3M’s pricing, leading to a higher offense level and a 60-month prison sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in calculating the FMV by relying on pre-pandemic prices and 3M’s pricing, which did not reflect the actual market conditions during the pandemic. The appellate court held that the district court’s method of determining the FMV was not based on a realistic economic approach. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Ritchey’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need for a more accurate calculation of the FMV that reflects the market conditions at the time of the transactions. View "United States v. Ritchey" on Justia Law

Dr. Ronald S. Hines, a retired and physically disabled veterinarian licensed in Texas, provided online pet-care advice without physically examining the animals. Texas law requires veterinarians to establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) through an in-person examination or a visit to the premises where the animal is kept before offering veterinary advice. Dr. Hines was penalized for violating this requirement, receiving probation, a fine, and being forced to retake a licensing exam. He challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that it unconstitutionally restricted his speech.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially dismissed Dr. Hines's First Amendment claim, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further consideration in light of new Supreme Court precedent. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding that the law regulated Dr. Hines's speech in a content-neutral way and survived intermediate scrutiny. Dr. Hines appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the physical-examination requirement primarily regulated Dr. Hines's speech rather than his conduct. The court found that the State failed to demonstrate that the harms it sought to address with the law were real and that the law alleviated these harms in a direct and material way. The court also concluded that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve the State's interests, as it burdened substantially more speech than necessary. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for Dr. Hines, upholding his First Amendment rights. View "Hines v. Pardue" on Justia Law

Federal agents received a tip about methamphetamine being stored at a house in El Paso, Texas. An informant arranged a controlled buy with Carla Dominguez, who confirmed she had methamphetamine for sale. Dominguez and her husband, Samuel Crittenden, were observed by agents; Crittenden retrieved a bag from the house and handed it to Dominguez, who was later intercepted by police with ten pounds of methamphetamine. Crittenden admitted to storing items at the house and giving a bag to Dominguez, claiming he thought it contained marijuana. Additional drugs were found in the attic of the house.Crittenden and Dominguez were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana. The government raised a potential conflict of interest with Crittenden’s attorney, Leonard Morales, who also represented another individual involved in drug activities. The district court held a Garcia hearing, where Crittenden waived his right to conflict-free counsel. The court accepted the waiver, and the trial proceeded. Crittenden was convicted on all counts, but the district court later granted a new trial due to insufficient evidence. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and remanded for sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Crittenden’s appeal, where he argued that the district court erred in accepting his waiver of conflict-free counsel and in denying a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession. The Fifth Circuit found that Crittenden’s waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in accepting it. The court also held that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated intent to distribute, making a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession inappropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Crittenden" on Justia Law

Marc and Augustus Degenhardt alleged that Corpus Christi Police Lieutenant Phillip Bintliff unlawfully initiated a traffic stop and that Bintliff and Officer Armando Cisneros unlawfully searched and towed their vehicle, retaliating against them for engaging in protected speech. The incident occurred when Marc, driving a Dodge Challenger with Augustus as a passenger, was stopped by Bintliff, who accused Marc of reckless driving and racing another vehicle. During the stop, Cisneros arrived and observed an open box of White Claw Hard Seltzers in the car. The officers ordered the brothers out of the car, conducted a search, and impounded the vehicle, charging them with minor alcohol possession and issuing a reckless driving warning. The charges were later dropped.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the suit, finding that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the remaining claims. The Degenhardts appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Degenhardts had sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment violation regarding the initial traffic stop, as the complaint suggested that Bintliff lacked reasonable suspicion. However, the court agreed with the district court that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle due to the visible alcohol. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the claims related to the vehicle's impoundment and the alleged retaliation for protected speech.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the Fourth Amendment claim related to the traffic stop. View "Degenhardt v. Bintliff" on Justia Law

A senior trooper with the Louisiana State Police (LSP), August McKay, committed suicide at his home after learning he was being reassigned and that a search warrant was to be executed on his residence. His widow, Brandy McKay, sued several LSP officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law, alleging their actions contributed to his death. The district court denied qualified immunity to two officers, Sergeant Rohn Bordelon and Trooper David LaCroix, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana initially dismissed Brandy’s Eighth Amendment claim but allowed her to amend her complaint. She then limited her claims to the Fourteenth Amendment and state laws. The district court found that Brandy had sufficiently stated § 1983 claims against Sgt. Bordelon and Trooper LaCroix, concluding they had subjective knowledge of August’s suicide risk and responded with deliberate indifference. The court dismissed the claims against other defendants and allowed the state law claims against Sgt. Bordelon and Trooper LaCroix to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional duty to protect August from self-harm, as he was not in state custody or otherwise restrained. The court emphasized that the officers did not attempt to arrest or confine August, and Brandy’s complaint focused on their failure to restrain him. Without a constitutional duty, there could be no violation, and thus, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed the district court’s decision regarding qualified immunity and dismissed the appeal concerning the state law claims without prejudice, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "McKay v. LaCroix" on Justia Law

Seven plaintiffs, all members of the Air Force, challenged the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, arguing it violated their religious beliefs. They sought religious exemptions, which were denied, leading to administrative discharge proceedings. One plaintiff, Byron O. Starks, Jr., was separated from service, allegedly for a preexisting medical condition, though he claimed it was due to his refusal to get vaccinated.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed the case as moot after the Air Force rescinded the vaccine mandate. The court also dismissed Starks’s claims for lack of standing, citing his separation from service and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the rescission of the mandate did not address all alleged harms, particularly the claim that the Air Force’s religious exemption process was a sham. The court held that Starks had standing because his separation caused ongoing harm, such as ineligibility for certain veteran benefits. The court also clarified that RFRA claims are not subject to the Mindes exhaustion requirement, allowing Starks to proceed without exhausting intraservice remedies.The Fifth Circuit determined that the claims of the six still-serving plaintiffs were not moot, as they alleged ongoing harm from the Air Force’s religious exemption process. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs to continue their challenge against the Air Force’s broader vaccination policies and religious accommodations process. View "Crocker v. Austin" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Infusion Center Association (NICA) and other plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, setting a "maximum fair price" between 40% and 75% of the market price. Manufacturers who do not comply face significant fines or must withdraw from Medicare coverage entirely.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed NICA's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court reasoned that NICA's claims had to be "channeled" through HHS as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405, which mandates that claims arising under the Medicare Act be decided by the relevant agency before being brought to federal court. The district court also dismissed the remaining plaintiffs due to improper venue without NICA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that NICA had standing based on both economic and procedural injuries. The court determined that NICA's claims did not arise under the Medicare Act but rather under the Inflation Reduction Act, and thus did not require channeling through HHS. The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over NICA's claims and reversed the lower court's dismissal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Natl Infusion Center v. Becerra" on Justia Law

In March 2013, Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative contracted with E.F. Erwin, Inc. to construct two grain silos. Erwin subcontracted AJ Constructors, Inc. (AJC) for the assembly. AJC completed its work by July 2013, and Erwin finished the project in November 2013. However, Woodsboro noticed defects causing leaks and signed an addendum with Erwin for repairs. Erwin's attempts to fix the silos failed, leading Woodsboro to hire Pitcock Supply, Inc. for repairs. Pitcock found numerous faults attributed to AJC's poor workmanship, necessitating complete deconstruction and reconstruction of the silos, costing Woodsboro $805,642.74.Woodsboro sued Erwin in Texas state court for breach of contract, and the case went to arbitration in 2017. The arbitration panel found AJC's construction was negligent, resulting in defective silos, and awarded Woodsboro $988,073.25 in damages. The Texas state court confirmed the award in September 2022. In December 2018, TIG Insurance Company, Erwin's insurer, sought declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, questioning its duty to defend and indemnify Erwin. The district court granted TIG's motion for summary judgment on the duty to defend, finding no "property damage" under the policy, and later ruled there was no duty to indemnify, as the damage was due to defective construction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there were factual questions regarding whether the damage constituted "property damage" under the insurance policy, as the silos' metal parts were damaged by wind and weather due to AJC's poor workmanship. The court determined that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for TIG and concluded that additional factual development was needed. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TIG Insurance Company v. Woodsboro Farmers Coop" on Justia Law