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

A Texas law, Senate Bill 17, prohibits individuals who are domiciled in certain “designated countries,” including China, from acquiring interests in Texas real estate. The law defines “domicile” as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home to which the individual intends to return whenever absent. Peng Wang, a Chinese citizen who has lived in Texas for sixteen years on an F-1 student visa, challenged the law’s constitutionality. Wang attends school in Texas, intends to remain in the state after graduation, and does not plan to return to China.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Wang’s suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding that he lacked standing. The district court found that Wang was not domiciled in China based on his long-term residence and stated intentions to remain in Texas. The court also concluded that Wang faced no substantial risk of future enforcement of the statute against him, citing repeated in-court statements by the Texas Attorney General disavowing any intent to enforce the law against Wang.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Wang lacked standing for two independent reasons. First, Wang failed to allege he was domiciled in China, so the statute did not arguably proscribe his conduct. Second, he did not demonstrate a credible threat of enforcement of the law, given the Attorney General’s in-court assurances and lack of any enforcement action or procedures targeting Wang. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wang v. Paxton" on Justia Law

A female senior administrator at a Mississippi public university, who had served as Vice President and Chief of Staff since 2017, alleged that she was not hired for the position of university president on two occasions, in 2020 and 2023, despite her extensive qualifications and expressed interest. In 2020, following the resignation of the then-president, the university’s governing board appointed a less-experienced male interim president without conducting a search or soliciting applications, even though the plaintiff had managed university affairs in the president’s absence. After the interim president was placed on administrative leave in 2023, the board began a new search. The plaintiff applied but was denied an interview; instead, the board selected another male candidate with less experience, who had not applied for the position.The plaintiff filed suit against the board members in their individual capacities, alleging sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as Title VII claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed all claims against the individual board members except for the § 1983 equal protection claim regarding the 2023 hiring decision. The district court found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case of sex discrimination and that the right to be free from such discrimination was clearly established, thus denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded a violation of clearly established equal protection rights, including allegations that each defendant took individual actions causing the asserted harm. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as to the § 1983 equal protection claim arising from the 2023 hiring decision. View "Jackson v. Duff" on Justia Law

Federal and state law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the home and business of George Peterson, a federally licensed firearms dealer operating out of his residence in Louisiana. The warrant was supported by an affidavit detailing months of investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), including undercover purchases where Peterson failed to report firearm sales as required and sold firearms under circumstances suggesting knowledge of illegal transactions. During the search, agents discovered a homemade, unregistered firearm suppressor in Peterson’s closet safe. The suppressor lacked a serial number and was not registered as required by the National Firearms Act (NFA).A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted Peterson for possession of an unregistered suppressor in violation of the NFA. Peterson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the NFA’s registration scheme violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him, and also moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied both motions. Peterson entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal those rulings. He was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that, assuming suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, the NFA’s “shall-issue” licensing and registration regime is presumptively constitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and related precedent. Peterson failed to show that the NFA’s requirements denied him his rights or were applied abusively. Regarding the motion to suppress, the court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officers reasonably relied on a warrant issued by a magistrate judge, even if probable cause was disputed. Thus, both denials were affirmed. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Two brothers sought multimillion-dollar loans from a bank to fund oil and gas investments. Because the bank required collateral, one brother arranged for a third party to create fraudulent documents making it appear that a securities account was worth millions. The brothers paid the third party for these fake statements, and, over several years, borrowed millions from the bank. They used some of the loan proceeds for improper purposes, including personal expenses and paying for the fake account statements. The bank eventually discovered the fraud after questioning the third party, who confessed and cooperated with the government, leading to indictments for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering.Prior to trial, the case was assigned to a district judge who had previously represented the victim bank in unrelated civil matters. One brother pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud before trial, while the other, Phillip, went to trial. The district court denied motions to dismiss the indictment, sever the defendants, and for the judge’s recusal. It also admitted certain evidence and denied several of Phillip’s proposed jury instructions. After a jury found Phillip guilty on all counts, he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms and supervised release. He appealed, raising issues related to the judge’s recusal, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial delay, instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district judge was not required to recuse himself due to his prior, unrelated representation of the bank. The court found no reversible error in the handling of co-conspirators’ pleas or other evidentiary rulings, found no grounds for dismissal due to prosecutorial delay, and held that the jury instructions were adequate. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected the cumulative error argument. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA v. Page" on Justia Law

The case concerns Holly Ann Elkins, who, along with her fiancé Andrew Beard, engaged in stalking and harassing Beard’s ex-girlfriend, Alyssa Burkett. Their actions included installing a GPS tracker on Burkett’s car, making false police reports, and plotting to plant incriminating evidence. These efforts were intended to gain custody of Beard’s child. Ultimately, Beard murdered Burkett, with Elkins providing assistance, such as purchasing materials used in the crime. Elkins was subsequently convicted by a jury of conspiracy to stalk, cyberstalking resulting in death, and using a firearm during a crime of violence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas sentenced Elkins to five years for conspiracy, a life sentence for cyberstalking resulting in death, and a consecutive life sentence for the firearm offense. Elkins appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, focusing on the firearm conviction and its associated life sentence. She argued that the underlying cyberstalking offense could not serve as a predicate “crime of violence” for the firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the relevant cyberstalking statute, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B), is not categorically a “crime of violence” because it does not require as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, even if death results. Consequently, the court vacated Elkins’s conviction and life sentence for the firearm charge. The court affirmed her convictions and sentences on the other counts, rejecting challenges related to the Commerce Clause, jury instructions, and alleged judicial bias. View "USA v. Elkins" on Justia Law

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