Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff received his third citation for Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”). As a term of his probation, Plaintiff, an alcoholic, was required to attend weekly substance abuse classes. Some of these classes conflicted with shifts that Plaintiff was scheduled to work as an operator at a plant owned by Defendant La Grange Acquisitions, L.P. Plaintiff informed his supervisors that he was an alcoholic and that several of the court-ordered substance abuse classes would conflict with his scheduled shifts. When Plaintiff was unable to find coverage for these shifts, La Grange, citing this scheduling conflict, terminated Plaintiff. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Plaintiff sued La Grange under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12112 et seq., for intentional discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Grange on all three claims.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the facts suggest only that a reasonable employer might have found that Plaintiff might have been seeking accommodation for his disability. To hold that La Grange was required to determine whether Plaintiff had a disability and needed accommodation in this situation would place the initial burden of identifying an accommodation request on the employer, not the employee. We cannot find that Plaintiff’s terse references to his struggles with drinking and self-identification as an alcoholic, made while discussing the legal implications of a recent DWI, were enough to place a legal responsibility on La Grange to probe whether Plaintiff was requesting a disability accommodation. View "Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions" on Justia Law

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) are two of the primary means of federal arms regulation and licensure T.he statutes impose heightened and at times, onerous requirements on manufacturing, selling, and transferring certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles (“SBRs”). The ATF issued a Proposed Rule indicating that the agency would use a point system to classify a firearm with a stabilizing brace as either a braced pistol or a rifle. The ATF published the Final Rule. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief, alleging various statutory deficiencies with the process and substance of the Final Rule. They also brought constitutional challenges. The district court denied injunctive relief, and after it did not rule expeditiously on a motion for an injunction pending appeal, this court enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule against the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now request that we extend that interim relief.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. The court explained that because the Final Rule is properly characterized as a legislative rule, it must follow the APA’s procedural requirements for notice and comment, including providing the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The court wrote that it is relatively straightforward that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, and the monumental error was prejudicial. The Final Rule must be set aside as unlawful or otherwise remanded for appropriate remediation. View "Mock v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs asserted claims in district court under Section 1983 against various officials for failing to protect a man in custody, claiming violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also have claims against individual defendants under a theory of bystander liability and a claim against the Sheriff for supervisory liability. And, against Culberson County, Plaintiffs asserted a claim under Section 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), on the basis that its policies related to jail-suicide prevention caused a violation of Schubert’s constitutional rights. But, this interlocutory appeal concerns only the failure-to-protect claims against Appellants.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Appellants possessed the requisite subjective knowledge. The court explained that although Plaintiffs alleged that the man in custody was cooperative and appeared truthful in his responses, Plaintiffs also alleged: the Sheriff was still required to conduct a mental-health screening form in accordance with TCJS; and, because “the form had not been completed,” the Sheriff “had to operate on the belief that the man was suicidal” and “was required to put the man on suicide watch.” The court explained that it requires that a defendant have “actual knowledge of the substantial risk of suicide.” Plaintiffs failed to allege that the man did or said anything to indicate he was suicidal. Because Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly show the Sheriff was subjectively aware of the risk of suicide, their allegations do not state a failure-to-protect claim against him. View "Edmiston v. Borrego" on Justia Law

This action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arises out of a man’s death while in pretrial detention in the Callahan County, Texas, Jail. Plaintiffs’ challenged the adverse summary judgments, including contesting evidentiary rulings.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs failed to show the requisite genuine dispute of material fact for whether the four defendants had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide; therefore, they fail to show a constitutional violation. Further, the court wrote that even assuming the court abused its discretion, the contested exhibits concern only Defendants’ knowledge regarding the risk of telephone cords as ligatures; they do not bear on Defendants’ subjective knowledge regarding whether the man was a substantial suicide risk. Accordingly, the court’s sustaining Defendants’ objections did not affect Plaintiffs’ substantial rights. Therefore, this assumed error was harmless. View "Crandel v. Hastings" on Justia Law

In January 2022, a jury convicted United Development Funding (“UDF”) executives (collectively “Appellants”) of conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and eight counts of aiding and abetting securities fraud.  Jurors heard evidence that Appellants were involved in what the Government deemed “a classic Ponzi-like scheme,” in which Appellants transferred money out of one fund to pay distributions to another fund’s investors without disclosing this information to their investors or the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Appellants each filed separate appeals, challenging their convictions on several grounds.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that evidence strongly supports a finding that Appellants intended to conduct a scheme to deprive investors of their money. There is proof that they purposefully advertised a desired rate of return to brokers and continued to solicit investors to invest their money into UDF III despite knowing that UDF III did not have enough money to sustain its current investors. Evidence also shows that they purposefully did not invest UDF IV and UDF V investors’ money into the business or otherwise use the money to further fund developer’s projects. Further, the court held that the foremost scheme alleged here was for the Appellants to obtain money from investors, and the Government’s mountain of evidence supporting this theory is sufficient, regardless of the invalidity of its subsidiary theory. Here, the Appellants fail to highlight the multiple errors that they allege occurred throughout their trial. View "USA v. Greenlaw" on Justia Law

Defendant, a deer farmer in Louisiana, was found guilty of aiding and abetting others in hunting over bait and hunting over a baited area, both in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The district court affirmed the conviction, fine, and one-year term of probation. On appeal, Defendant principally argued that the MBTA and accompanying regulations allow him to use Mississippi’s Cooperative Extension Service guidance for the Southeast region, rather than the guidance issued by Louisiana’s Extension Service, to take advantage of the MBTA’s safe harbor provision.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the safe harbor exemption found in Section 20.21(i)(1) is only applicable where feed has been distributed “solely as the result of a normal agricultural operation.” Defendant does not challenge the extraneous improvements evidence and, instead, argues only that the Government made its case based on outdated guidance from the expert witness and did not look to Mississippi’s extension service recommendations that Defendant’s planting allegedly followed. The court wrote that because it held that the Cooperative Extension Service and State Extension Specialists’ guidance is state-specific, the court found no error in the Government’s use of the LSU Extension’s recommendations. Further, the court reasoned that even if the Mississippi State guidance was applicable, it did not benefit Defendant because he did not follow the normally accepted practice of placing one inch of soil over the seeds. View "USA v. Holdman" on Justia Law

Without a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. The district court sentenced him to 30 years in prison. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the factual basis to which he pleaded guilty and the reasonableness of his sentence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the factual basis supports Defendant’s guilty plea, and the district court’s imposition of an upward variance was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court articulated the fact-specific reasons in support of a non-Guidelines sentence, committed no legal error in the procedure followed in arriving at the sentence, and gave appropriate reasons for its imposition. Accordingly, the sentencing court is owed “great deference,” and Defendant has not shown that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable.   The court further explained that Defendant did not show that the court’s analysis failed to take into account a factor that should have received significant weight, gave weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represented a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors and other relevant considerations. Thus, in applying a deferential standard of review to the district court’s consideration of the totality of the circumstances, as required, the court held that the district court’s upward-variance sentence was substantively reasonable. View "USA v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a sentencing enhancement for possessing a gun “in connection with” drug trafficking. Defendant raised two challenges to his sentence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines and did not clearly err in its factfinding. The court explained that Defendant correctly received a four-level sentencing enhancement if he possessed a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. The court reasoned that a firearm is “automatically” connected to drug trafficking if it is found in close proximity to drugs or drug paraphernalia, and there is no serious dispute that Defendant’s firearm was in close proximity to his drugs, grinder and scale.   Further, Defendant argued that the automatic enhancement prescribed by Application Note 14(B) is an unreasonable expansion of the Guidelines’ text under Kisor v. Wilkie. The court noted that first, the district court was entitled to find that Defendant committed a drug trafficking offense. Mere possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute qualifies as a “drug trafficking offense.” Moreover, Defendant alleged that he expressly told the officers at the traffic stop that the drugs were just for personal use. But there is nothing in the record to support that. Finally, Defendant reasoned that because he was homeless, he was less capable of trafficking. But the United States cites Defendant’s lack of gainful employment as evidence for trafficking—he had an obvious motive to turn drugs for profit. View "USA v. Choulat" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court found the calculated guidelines range of 15 to 21 months to be “woefully unreasonable” and varied upwards to a total of 72 months of imprisonment, which consisted of a sentence of 36 months for the identity theft offense and a concurrent sentence of 72 months for the firearm offense. On appeal, Defendant challenged only the substantive reasonableness of the 72-month sentence for the firearm offense.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Defendant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving significant weight to Defendant’s prior marijuana importation offense, which is the predicate offense for his firearm conviction, and to the statements of the victim of the identity theft. Finally, Defendant has not shown that the district court made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors of Section 3553(a), and the court declined to reweigh those factors. View "USA v. Cortez-Balderas" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted a doctor and two pharmacists (collectively, “Appellants” or “Defendants”) for roles in a “pill-mill” operation. Prosecutors charged Appellants with three drug-distribution conspiracies that each spanned from 2011 to 2020. The pharmacists, who both owned pharmacies, were also charged with possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. At trial, the Government offered extensive evidence, including text messages, wiretaps, surveillance, cooperator testimony, and records from Defendants’ businesses and homes. The jury found Defendants guilty on all counts. The district court sentenced the doctor and one of the pharmacists to 240 months imprisonment and the other pharmacist to 151 months. Defendants timely appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to draw reasonable inferences to support Appellants’ convictions. The pharmacist and doctor failed to make the showings necessary to warrant plain error reversal. The pharmacist’s refusal to be represented by her retained attorney amounted to a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel. The pharmacist failed to show the necessary prejudice for her challenges to the denial of a continuance, as well as permitting a DEA agent to authenticate her signature as a lay witness. The Government’s closing argument was consistent with the evidence. The record is not sufficiently developed to evaluate the doctor’s IAC claim. View "USA v. Capistrano" on Justia Law