Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

ATBS and its owner filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against the City of Jackson, alleging that the mayor, acting through city employees, ended support for a development project proposed by ATBS after Hewitt had made public statements claiming corruption in city government. The district court entered judgment as a matter of law (JML) to the city. The court concluded that the city council was the final policymaker with ultimate authority to approve (or reject) project funding. The mayor did not have final authority over individual funding decisions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Advanced Tech. Bldg. Solutions LLC. v. Jackson, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sergeant Cisneros and Officer Montelongo, among others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff participated in several demonstrations throughout the City of Houston that led to his detention and arrest by police officers. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that Officer Montelongo is not entitled to qualified immunity because the genuine factual dispute identified by the court - whether plaintiff had entered the roadway - is not material to the determination of qualified immunity. Plaintiff's possession of his shofar independently provided reasonable suspicion for his detention. The court also concluded that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to Sergeant Cisneros. In this case, neither of the remaining factual disputes identified by the district court - whether plaintiff complied with Sergeant Cisneros’ orders and whether plaintiff remained bound by Sergeant Cisneros’ prior orders - is material for determining whether Sergeant Cisneros is entitled to qualified immunity for his detention and subsequent arrest of plaintiff. Sergeant Cisneros had a lawful reason for detaining plaintiff independent of any potential failure to comply by plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the officers. View "Allen v. Cisneros" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a high school JROTC instructor, filed suit against the School Board and two school employees, alleging claims of retaliation under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and state law. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 and state law claims where plaintiff was not prejudiced because the suit was still in its infancy when defendants raised the time-bar defense. In this case, plaintiff had notice and opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss and he does not challenge the conclusion that his claims are time-barred. In regard to the FCA claim, plaintiff's primary theory of liability against the School Board is that the School Board's agents opposed plaintiff's protected actives and they used pretext to convince the Marine Corps to remove plaintiff from the school. Plaintiff also argued that the agents retaliated against him directly for engaging in protected activity, and that the School Board is liable for their conduct. The court concluded that plaintiff has pled enough facts to state a claim under this latter theory. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded as to the FCA claim. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Bias v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

This case arose from a New York Times article about Senator Rand Paul, which briefly quotes Walter Block, an economics professor. Block filed suit against defendants asserting claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Although Block does not dispute that he made the statements at issue, he argues that the article takes the statements so far out of context as to make them untrue and defamatory. The district court granted a special motion to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 971 (anti-SLAPP law), dismissed the complaint, and awarded defendants attorney's fees. In Lozovyy v. Kurtz, the court interpreted Louisiana law and concluded that “the Louisiana Supreme Court would recognize that Article 971’s ‘probability of success’ standard does not permit courts to weigh evidence, assess credibility, or resolve disputed issues of material fact.” Because the district court lacked the benefit of the court's recent guidance in Lozovyy, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to apply the standard. On remand, the district court should consider whether Block has established a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of his claims. View "Block v. New York Times Co." on Justia Law

Texas merchants filed suit challenging Texas’ Anti-Surcharge Law, Tex. Fin. Code 339.001. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied a preliminary injunction. Merchants claim that the law penalizes them for characterizing pricing as a “surcharge”, while at the same time not prohibiting a “discount” for non-credit-card transactions; and is unconstitutionally vague. Reviewing the parties’ claims de novo, and in the light of the States’ broad authority to regulate economic conduct, the court held that Texas’ law regulates conduct, not speech, and, therefore, does not implicate the First Amendment. Instead, the law ensures only that merchants do not impose an additional charge above the regular price for customers paying with credit cards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rowell v. Pettijohn" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of Louisiana’s statutory requirement that each physician who performs outpatient abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act of 2014, La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 620 (H.B. 388). The district court held that the admitting-privileges requirement was facially unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the law against plaintiffs. Louisiana subsequently filed this emergency motion to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending the resolution of Louisiana's appeal. The court granted the motion, concluding that Louisiana has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. In this case, Louisiana is likely to prevail in its argument that plaintiffs failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the Act creates a substantial obstacle in the path of a large fraction of women seeking an abortion. The court also concluded that Louisiana has made an adequate showing as to the remaining factors considered in determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal. View "June Medical Servs. v. Cald" on Justia Law

Marcus Cass was fatally shot by Officer Chris Smith during the execution of a warrant to collect certain business records. Plaintiffs, Cass's family members, filed suit against the City, along with Smith and the Chief of Police in their individual capacities, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and various Fourth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith and the Chief on the basis of qualified immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the Chief because plaintiffs produced no summary judgment evidence that he was involved with the execution of the warrant or Cass’s death. Although a reasonable jury could find that the manner in which Smith executed the warrant was unconstitutional and neither the district court nor the parties has addressed whether the violation was clearly established in the law, the court affirmed summary judgment on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim as it relates to the execution of the warrant because plaintiffs have not shown that Smith violated clearly established law. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment on the remaining claims against Smith because plaintiffs failed to raise fact issues to support constitutional claims for retaliation or excessive force as it relates to Smith's shooting of Cass. View "Cass v. City of Abilene" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from injuries sustained by a platform worker employed by Vertex. Continental appealed the district court's final judgment in favor of Tetra and Maritech, requiring Continental and its codefendant insured, Vertex, to indemnify them. The court concluded that the summary judgment record is inadequate to determine whether the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), requires the adoption of Louisiana law as surrogate federal law where the court cannot determine whether there is an OCSLA situs, the court cannot determine whether federal maritime law applies, and the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2780, is consistent with federal law. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither party is entitled to summary judgment as to whether LOIA must be adopted as surrogate federal law under OCSLA. The court remanded to the district court to determine the dispositive issue of whether Louisiana law must be adopted as surrogate federal law. View "Tetra Tech. v. Vertex Servs." on Justia Law

These two consolidated appeals stem from suits between Donald Cuba and Julia Pylant where Julia accused Cuba of rape and Cuba was later acquitted of the charge. In No. 15-10212, Cuba sued Julia and her parents (collectively “the Pylants”) for malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. In No. 15-10213, Julia sued Cuba for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and Cuba counterclaimed with causes of action substantially identical to those in his suit. The Pylants moved, in both suits, to dismiss Cuba's claims under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act (Texas's anti-SLAPP statute), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 27.004. The district court eventually held that the TCPA motions were moot because they had already been denied by operation of law. The court agreed with the Pylants that, under the TCPA framework, the 30-day deadline before a motion is deemed denied by operation of law runs only from the date of the hearing on the motion. But, because no such hearing was held in these cases, the TCPA motion was not denied by operation of law. In this case, the appeals are timely where the operative date from which the 30-day clock under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ran was March 6, 2015, the date of the order denying the motion. On the merits, the court concluded that the TCPA applies in this case where, as Cuba concedes, all of the acts that the Pylants are being sued for are exercises of the right to petition as defined under the statute. The court further concluded that Cuba's claims of malicious prosecution and defamation are pleaded in sufficient detail. However, as to the defamation claim, the Pylants have established an affirmative defense as to certain of the communications at issue. Finally, Cuba’s tortious interference claim does not survive the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court vacated the orders from which these interlocutory appeals are taken, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuba v. Pylant" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, mother of decedent Marcus Dewayne Slade, filed a wrongful death suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and various local officials after Marcus died in police custody. The cause of death was determined to be PCP toxicity. Plaintiff concedes that she does not have evidence sufficient to recover under Texas's wrongful death statute because she cannot demonstrate that defendants' wrongful actions more likely than not caused Marcus's death. However, plaintiff urges the court to decline to apply Texas's causation standard. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that case law supports an exception when the need for medical care is obvious, and that the standard is inconsistent with federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Slade v. City of Marshall" on Justia Law