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

Brett Favre, a former professional football player, sued Shannon Sharpe, another former player and sports talk show host, for defamation. Sharpe had made statements on his show accusing Favre of stealing funds from a government program intended for impoverished individuals. These comments were made in the context of a widely reported welfare scandal in Mississippi, where federal funds were misused, and Favre was alleged to have received some of these funds. Favre had not been criminally charged but was involved in a civil suit filed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) to recover misused funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Favre's defamation suit on the pleadings. The court ruled that Sharpe's comments were rhetorical hyperbole and thus not actionable. The court found that no reasonable person would interpret Sharpe's statements as literal accusations of theft, given the context of the broadcast.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court did not analyze the rhetorical hyperbole argument but instead focused on whether Sharpe's statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts. The court concluded that Sharpe's statements were strongly stated opinions based on widely reported facts about the welfare scandal. The court noted that the broadcast included corrections and clarifications about the facts, and Sharpe's comments did not imply undisclosed false facts. Therefore, the statements were nonactionable as they were opinions based on truthful, established facts.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Favre's defamation claim, holding that Sharpe's statements were protected opinions and did not constitute defamation. View "Favre v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Ethan Sturgis Day was involved in a fraudulent scheme that purported to sell shipping containers converted into housing units. The scammers, including Day, misrepresented their credentials and affiliations to lure customers, collected payments, and never delivered the promised container homes. Day managed employees and the scammers' bank accounts. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) identified 41 victims and assessed a loss amount of $2,563,123.72, but only detailed the financial circumstances of eight victims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced Day to 101 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. The court enhanced Day's offense level based on the loss amount and for causing substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims, as well as for his role as an organizer or leader. Day objected to these enhancements, but the district court overruled his objections and adopted the PSR. After a restitution hearing, the court lowered the loss amount by nearly $1 million and re-sentenced Day to 101 months, maintaining the same enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in applying the six-point enhancement for substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims, as the record did not support that 25 or more victims experienced substantial financial hardship. However, the court upheld the two-point enhancement for Day's role as an organizer or leader, noting that he exercised control over other participants and managed significant assets of the fraud. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Day's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Day" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P. (Highland) was an investment fund managed by James Dondero, who also managed several of its subsidiaries. Highland had a practice of lending money to its subsidiaries and to Dondero personally. During Highland's bankruptcy proceedings, Dondero was removed, and a court-appointed board took over. The board attempted to collect on promissory notes executed in Highland's favor by the subsidiaries and Dondero. When they refused to pay, Highland initiated adversary actions in bankruptcy court.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas handled the initial proceedings. Highland filed several adversary actions against Dondero and the subsidiaries, seeking enforcement of the promissory notes. The cases were consolidated, and the bankruptcy court recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Highland. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas adopted the recommendations and entered judgment against all defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Highland had established a prima facie case for the validity and enforceability of the promissory notes. The court found that the defendants' arguments, including claims of oral agreements to forgive the loans, lack of authority to sign the notes, mutual mistake, prepayment, and Highland's responsibility to make payments, were unsupported by credible evidence. The court concluded that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Highland was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Highland Capital v. NexPoint Asset" on Justia Law

Robert Mayfield, a small-business owner operating thirteen fast-food restaurants in Austin, Texas, challenged the Department of Labor's (DOL) 2019 Minimum Salary Rule. This rule raised the minimum salary required to qualify for the White Collar Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from $455 per week to $684 per week. Mayfield argued that the DOL exceeded its statutory authority by imposing any salary requirement and that such a requirement violated the nondelegation doctrine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL, finding that the 2019 Minimum Salary Rule was within the DOL's authority to define and delimit the terms of the White Collar Exemption. The court also held that this delegation of authority did not violate the nondelegation doctrine.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 DOL's authority to define and delimit the terms of the White Collar Exemption included the power to set a minimum salary level. The court found that this power was explicitly delegated by Congress and was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court also determined that the major questions doctrine did not apply, as the economic and political significance of the rule did not meet the threshold for invoking the doctrine. Additionally, the court concluded that the FLSA's purpose and the text of the exemption itself provided sufficient guidance to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine's requirements. View "Mayfield v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Keith M. Cole, a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and a devout member of the Bahá’í faith, believes he must eat non-pork meat with every meal. TDCJ, however, only provides non-pork meat in about two-thirds of its meals. Cole sued TDCJ under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), claiming that the prison's meal policy violated his religious rights. TDCJ offers three meal options: a regular tray, a meat-free tray, and a pork-free tray, but none replace excluded items with non-pork meat. Cole supplemented his diet by purchasing non-pork meat from the commissary, incurring significant personal expenses.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of TDCJ. The court held that TDCJ had a compelling interest in controlling costs and that its meal-selection policy was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The magistrate judge's report, adopted by the district court, concluded that TDCJ's policy was justified despite Cole's objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that TDCJ provided no evidence to support its claim of a compelling interest in controlling costs or that its policy was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The court emphasized that RLUIPA requires the government to demonstrate that it has no other means of achieving its goal without imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that TDCJ's unsupported assertions were insufficient to meet the strict scrutiny standard required under RLUIPA. View "Cole v. Collier" on Justia Law

Independent candidates and minor political parties in Texas challenged several provisions of the Texas Election Code, arguing that these provisions, when combined, violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing severe and unequal burdens on non-wealthy Independents and Minor Parties. The provisions in question include requirements for obtaining ballot access through primary elections, party nominations, or nominating petitions, as well as restrictions on petitioning methods and timelines.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court found that the requirement for candidates to submit hardcopy signatures for ballot access petitions was unconstitutional, reasoning that it imposed an unequal burden on the plaintiffs compared to Major Parties, which could use electronic methods. The court enjoined the enforcement of the paper-petitioning process but stayed its injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the constitutionality of the ballot-access laws. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the challenged provisions imposed severe burdens on them. The court upheld the numerical signature requirement, the costs associated with obtaining signatures, the time constraints on petitioning, and the restrictive petitioning procedures as justified by legitimate state interests. The court also upheld the filing fee or petition requirement for Minor Party candidates and rejected the claim that the provisions imposed more severe restrictions on presidential Independents.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the paper-petitioning requirement was unconstitutional, noting that all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, must obtain petition signatures through hardcopy methods. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Miller v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Century Surety Company, acting as a subrogee of Triangle Engineering, L.P., and Colgate Operating, L.L.C. over the interpretation of a Master Services/Sales Agreement (MSA) and the insurance policies of the parties. Colgate, an oil well operator, and Triangle, an oilfield consultancy, entered into the MSA in April 2017, which included mutual indemnity provisions supported by liability insurance. Both parties purchased insurance, but Colgate's coverage was significantly higher than Triangle's. Following an accident involving a worker, Century, as Triangle’s subrogee, sought reimbursement from Colgate for a settlement payment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Colgate. The court rejected affidavits from Colgate’s vice president and Triangle’s sole member, which were intended to clarify the parties' intentions at the time of the MSA signing. The district court concluded that the MSA did not specify a ceiling for insurance coverage and applied the "lowest common denominator rule" from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp., limiting Colgate’s indemnity obligation to $6 million, the amount of coverage Triangle had purchased.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment but on different grounds. The appellate court agreed that the district court correctly excluded the extrinsic evidence but found that the MSA itself provided both a floor and a ceiling of $5 million for mutual indemnity coverage. The court held that Colgate’s insurance policies did not alter this limit and that Colgate was not liable to Century beyond the $5 million specified in the MSA. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Colgate. View "Century Surety Co. v. Colgate Operating" on Justia Law

In the early morning, Javier Ambler II was driving without dimming his high beams, prompting a Texas sheriff’s deputy to signal him to stop. Ambler refused, leading to a high-speed chase involving multiple officers. The pursuit ended when Ambler crashed into trees in Austin, Texas. As officers attempted to arrest him, Ambler, who had congestive heart failure, repeatedly stated he could not breathe. Despite his pleas, Austin City Policeman Michael Nissen and other officers continued to restrain him. Ambler was eventually handcuffed but appeared limp and was later pronounced dead at a hospital. His family sued, alleging excessive force and bystander liability.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Nissen’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, citing genuine disputes of material fact. The court found that the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, could support a finding that Nissen used excessive force and failed to intervene to prevent other officers from using excessive force.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment because the appeal did not turn on a pure issue of law but rather on disputed facts. The court emphasized that factual disputes, such as whether Ambler was resisting arrest or posed a threat, were material to the plaintiffs’ claims and should be resolved by a jury. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ambler v. Nissen" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs J.A. Masters Investments and K.G. Investments brought state-law claims of fraud and breach of contract against the defendant. The case was fully litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which accepted jurisdiction based on the premise that the parties were citizens of different states under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). However, the record only mentioned the residence of each party, not their citizenship, which is required to establish diversity jurisdiction.The district court conducted a five-day jury trial, and the jury rendered a verdict. Following the trial, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional issue: the pleadings did not definitively establish the citizenship of each party, only their residency. The court requested a joint letter from the parties to address whether diversity jurisdiction existed. The parties insisted that jurisdiction was proper and even stipulated to facts they believed would confirm complete diversity. However, they failed to provide citations to the record establishing citizenship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the record did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that citizenship and residence are not synonymous and that the parties had conflated the two. Given the incomplete record, the court decided to remand the case to the district court to allow the parties to supplement the record with the necessary jurisdictional facts. The court emphasized that without clear evidence of jurisdiction, any resolution would be nonbinding. The case was remanded for further proceedings to establish whether the parties are indeed citizens of different states, with the appellate panel retaining jurisdiction pending any further appeal. View "J.A. Masters Investments v. Beltramini" on Justia Law

The defendant, Christopher Gonzales, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred by not applying Section 5G1.3(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines and by imposing a sentence that did not clearly reflect its judgment. Specifically, there was a discrepancy between the district court’s oral statements at the sentencing hearing and the written judgment regarding whether the 43 months Gonzales spent in state detention should count toward his federal sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially sentenced Gonzales without reducing his sentence by the 43 months he spent in state detention. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals identified this inconsistency and authorized a limited remand for the district court to clarify its intent regarding Gonzales’s sentence. On remand, the district court added language to the judgment stating that Gonzales’s federal sentence would run concurrently with any term imposed by the State of Texas but did not reduce the sentence by 43 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the supplemental briefs and the record, concluding that the amended judgment fully clarified the district court’s intent and resolved all issues on appeal. The court found that the district court’s decision not to reduce Gonzales’s sentence by 43 months was consistent with its statements during sentencing and the decision to impose an upward variance. The Fifth Circuit also reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that Gonzales’s constitutional challenge to his Section 922(g)(1) conviction failed under plain error review. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s amended judgment. View "United States v. Gonzales" on Justia Law