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

In June 2022, Juan Jose Vega-Santos was charged with illegal reentry into the United States following removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)–(b). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range, and imposed three years of supervised release with special conditions, including a requirement to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas imposed the special condition as part of Vega-Santos's supervised release due to his prior felony conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor. Vega-Santos did not challenge this condition in the district court. On appeal, he argued that the condition constituted an unlawful delegation of the district court’s sentencing authority and was impermissibly ambiguous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the special condition requiring Vega-Santos to participate in sex offender treatment if recommended by an evaluator constituted an unlawful delegation of judicial authority. The court noted that the imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated. The court found that the district court's error was clear or obvious and affected Vega-Santos's substantial rights. The error also seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the special condition and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Vega-Santos" on Justia Law

The State of Texas placed a concertina wire fence along part of the border with Mexico in the Eagle Pass area to deter illegal crossings. The United States Border Patrol agents cut the wire multiple times, claiming it was necessary to fulfill their duty of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry. Texas sued for an injunction, arguing that the Border Patrol was needlessly cutting the wire. The district court found that the Border Patrol was not hampered by the wire and had breached it numerous times without apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance. However, the court denied the injunction, citing the United States' sovereign immunity against Texas's claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, despite agreeing with Texas on the facts. The court believed that the United States retained sovereign immunity. A motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. The United States sought relief in the Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without providing reasons. The case was remanded to the district court to investigate events in Shelby Park, where Texas's actions were alleged to have obstructed Border Patrol operations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity as to Texas's state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also rejected the United States' arguments that the injunction was barred by intergovernmental immunity and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that Texas satisfied the injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, with modifications based on the district court's supplemental fact findings. View "Texas v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves six plaintiffs who are users of Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service that uses immutable smart contracts to anonymize transactions. Tornado Cash was sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for allegedly facilitating money laundering for malicious actors, including North Korea. The plaintiffs argued that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by designating Tornado Cash as a Specially Designated National (SDN) and blocking its smart contracts.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of the Treasury, finding that Tornado Cash is an entity that can be sanctioned, that its smart contracts constitute property, and that the Tornado Cash DAO has an interest in these smart contracts. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether the immutable smart contracts could be considered "property" under IEEPA. The court concluded that these smart contracts are not property because they are not capable of being owned, controlled, or altered by anyone, including their creators. The court emphasized that property, by definition, must be ownable, and the immutable smart contracts do not meet this criterion. Consequently, the court held that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by sanctioning Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on the Administrative Procedure Act. The court did not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an entity or whether it has an interest in the smart contracts, as the determination that the smart contracts are not property was dispositive. View "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Capstone Logistics, LLC, a company providing labor to other businesses, began supplying auditors to Associated Wholesale Grocers in 2019. The auditors, including Joyce Henson, were responsible for checking groceries and ensuring order accuracy. Henson, hired as lead auditor, raised concerns about safety, training, and pay on behalf of the auditors. She also contacted Donny Rouse, a major customer, about her pay. After a meeting with Capstone officials, Henson sent a LinkedIn message to Rouse about the auditors' pay issues. Following a brief interaction with Associated Wholesale Grocers' Director Chris Griffin, Henson was terminated by Capstone's Vice President Tim Casey.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Capstone, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for discharging Henson due to her protected concerted activities. An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the allegations, finding no sufficient causal connection between Henson's protected activities and her termination. The ALJ concluded that Henson's termination was more likely due to her efforts to secure better compensation for herself.The NLRB reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that Henson was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity by sending the LinkedIn message to Rouse and because Capstone believed she had engaged in such activity during her conversation with Griffin. Capstone petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found insufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that Capstone discharged Henson for sending the LinkedIn message. However, the court affirmed the NLRB's alternative determination that Capstone violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging Henson because it believed she had engaged in protected concerted activity. The court denied Capstone's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application to enforce its order. View "Capstone Logistics v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Kenny Savoie, a former employee of Pritchard Energy Advisors, LLC (PGA), filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Thomas Pritchard, his former boss, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Savoie, a Louisiana resident, claimed that Pritchard, a Virginia resident, owed him compensation under a 2017 offer letter for work done on behalf of Empire Petroleum Corporation. Savoie alleged that Pritchard fraudulently informed him that PGA had not received any payments for his projects, thus denying him due compensation.The district court dismissed the case against Pritchard for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Pritchard's contacts with Louisiana were made in his corporate capacity and were protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine. The court found that Savoie failed to establish any exceptions to this doctrine that would allow Pritchard's corporate contacts to be attributed to him personally.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the fiduciary shield doctrine, which prevents the exercise of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant's corporate acts, applied in this case. The court noted that Louisiana law recognizes the fiduciary shield doctrine and that Savoie did not establish any exceptions, such as piercing the corporate veil or alleging a tort for which Pritchard could be personally liable. Consequently, the court concluded that Pritchard's corporate contacts could not be used to establish personal jurisdiction over him in Louisiana. View "Savoie v. Pritchard" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Clarence Cocroft and Tru Source Medical Cannabis, L.L.C., challenged Mississippi's restrictions on advertising medical marijuana, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to advertise because the state permits the underlying commercial transactions. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Central Hudson test for commercial speech and held that because federal law criminalizes marijuana, including medical marijuana, the advertising of such transactions does not qualify for First Amendment protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that under the Central Hudson test, commercial speech must concern lawful activity to receive First Amendment protection. Since the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits marijuana nationwide, including in Mississippi, the underlying commercial conduct is illegal. Therefore, the state faces no constitutional obstacle to restricting commercial speech related to unlawful transactions. The court concluded that the First Amendment does not protect the advertising of medical marijuana in Mississippi due to its illegal status under federal law. View "Cocroft v. Graham" on Justia Law

Edgar Hermosillo Minor pled guilty to four drug charges in 2022, including importing and possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute. His presentence report calculated a base offense level of 34, adjusted for his minimal role and acceptance of responsibility, but added five levels due to a career-offender enhancement based on three prior federal marijuana-related convictions from 2000 and 2010. This enhancement placed him in a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months, whereas without it, the range would have been 121 to 151 months. Minor objected to the enhancement, arguing that a 2018 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana, making his prior convictions no longer qualify as "controlled substance offenses." The district court overruled his objection and applied the enhancement, sentencing him to 180 months.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas overruled Minor's objection and applied the career-offender enhancement based on the CSA's definition of marijuana at the time of his prior convictions. Despite this, the court imposed a downward variance, sentencing Minor to 180 months, which he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CSA's definition of "controlled substance" in effect at the time of sentencing for the current offense should be used to determine whether prior convictions qualify for the career-offender enhancement. The court found that the district court erred by applying the enhancement based on the outdated definition of marijuana. The court also concluded that the error was not harmless, as the district court did not explicitly state that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the correct Guidelines range. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v. Minor" on Justia Law

Jon Willis, an employee of Shamrock Management, L.L.C., was injured while working on an offshore oil platform operated by Fieldwood Energy, L.L.C. The injury occurred when a tag line slipped off a grocery box being delivered by a vessel operated by Barry Graham Oil Service, L.L.C. Willis sued Barry Graham for negligence. Barry Graham then sought indemnification, defense, and insurance coverage from Shamrock and its insurer, Aspen, based on a series of contracts linking the parties.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied Barry Graham's motion for summary judgment and granted Shamrock and Aspen's motion, ruling that Barry Graham was not covered under the defense, indemnification, and insurance provisions of the Shamrock-Fieldwood Master Services Contract (MSC). Willis's case was settled, and Barry Graham appealed the district court's decision on its third-party complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the MSC required Shamrock to defend, indemnify, and insure Barry Graham because Barry Graham was part of a "Third Party Contractor Group" under the MSC. The court also determined that the cross-indemnification provisions in the contracts were satisfied, and that the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA) did not void Shamrock's obligations because Fieldwood had paid the insurance premium to cover Shamrock's indemnities, thus meeting the Marcel exception.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Barry Graham Oil v. Shamrock Mgmt" on Justia Law

Parvez Qureshi was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and four counts of distribution of controlled substances. Qureshi, a physician, had partnered with Rubeena Ayesha, an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, to operate a pain management clinic. The clinic saw a high volume of patients, many of whom paid cash for prescriptions of controlled substances like Norco and Oxycodone. The Government alleged that Qureshi pre-signed blank prescriptions, which Ayesha used to prescribe these substances when Qureshi was not present.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially tried Qureshi, resulting in a mistrial. In a subsequent trial, Qureshi was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to sixty months for each count, to run concurrently. Qureshi appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ruan v. United States, which clarified the mens rea requirement for convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the jury instructions for the substantive counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) were erroneous because they did not require the jury to find that Qureshi knew he was acting in an unauthorized manner. This omission was not harmless, as Qureshi's knowledge was a contested issue at trial. However, the court held that the conspiracy instruction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 was not erroneous, as it required the jury to find that Qureshi knew the purpose of the agreement was to distribute controlled substances without authorization.The Fifth Circuit vacated Qureshi's convictions for the four substantive counts and remanded for a new trial on those counts. The court affirmed Qureshi's conspiracy conviction but vacated his sentence on all counts and remanded for resentencing on the conspiracy count. View "USA v. Qureshi" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Mississippi legislature passed S.B. 2162, which abolished the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) and created the Jackson Metropolitan Area Airport Authority (Authority). The new Authority would be governed by nine commissioners, with only two selected by the Jackson city government. The JMAA commissioners, along with Jackson’s Mayor and City Council, intervened in a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. They claimed S.B. 2162 diluted the voting rights of Jackson citizens and altered the airport’s management for race-based reasons.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi initially upheld the plaintiffs' standing and ordered discovery, which the legislators resisted, citing legislative privilege. On the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they failed to demonstrate injury to a legally protected interest. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the standing issue, and the district court again ordered discovery. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s privilege ruling but later dismissed the appeal as moot when none of the plaintiff-commissioners held their positions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue. The court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were institutional rather than personal, as the injury affected the JMAA as an entity. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in their positions or the associated per diem and travel reimbursements. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Jones v. Reeves" on Justia Law