Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff formed the Enelre Foundation as a Stiftung under the laws of Liechtenstein. Stiftung is a German word meaning, roughly, “foundation” or “endowment.” Enelre’s purpose is to provide education and general support for Plaintiff and his children. Plaintiff transferred $3 million to Enelre’s bank accounts. He later learned the IRS would consider Enelre a “foreign trust,” triggering certain reporting requirements. Plaintiff belatedly filed the reports, and the IRS assessed penalties. Plaintiff paid the penalties and then filed this refund action. The district court granted summary judgment for the government.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court correctly found that Enelre qualifies as a foreign trust. Its organizing documents explain that Enelre’s purpose is to support its beneficiaries and limit its transactions to pursuing and realising its purpose. This is characteristic of an ordinary trust. The documents also prohibit Enelre from conducting commercial trade. Liechtensteinian Public Registry filings confirm this prohibition. Enelre’s familial purpose, lack of business objective, and bar on commercial activity render it a trust. Enelre’s form of organization confirms it is a trust. Enelre is subject to Liechtenstein’s “Act on Trust Enterprises.” View "Rost v. USA" on Justia Law

Defendant the owner of a home health agency was convicted of Medicare fraud. On appeal, she complained that her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel had been violated. Turns out, Defendant’s pretrial counsel was also representing one of the Government’s star witnesses. The Fifth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Defendant’s lawyer’s conflict of interest—a conflict the Government knew about— adversely affected his representation, and the district court answered: yes.The Fifth Circuit vacated Defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court explained that as the Government admits, it never offered Defendant a plea deal while she was represented by her conflicted pretrial counsel, or after. So there is no rejected plea deal to measure Defendant’s harm against. The court explained the constitutional right to counsel is “perhaps the central feature of our adversarial system,” as it “helps make real the Constitution’s other criminal procedure promises. The court wrote that the Government’s proposed remedy— to keep the convictions intact but remand for new plea negotiations— wouldn’t neutralize the taint of the constitutional violation. View "USA v. Sheperd" on Justia Law

Defendant, El Paso found Plaintiff’s son in the process of hanging himself from a basketball hoop. But it was dark, Defendant was afraid the man might have a weapon, and the man did not respond to Defendant’s orders to show his hands. So Defendant tased the man once, took down his body, and performed CPR. To no avail. The man soon after died in the emergency room from the hanging. His parents sued Defendant for using excessive force, the district court denied qualified immunity, and Defendant appealed.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and rendered judgment granting Defendant qualified immunity. The court explained that the district court and Plaintiffs rely on cases holding that officers may not use force against arrestees who are already subdued and in police custody. This case is markedly different. The reason Defendant tased the man was that he was not in custody and Defendant was afraid he might have a weapon. Even if that fear turned out to be groundless—something the court wrote it cannot decide here—Defendant still did not transgress any clearly established law. View "Ramirez v. Escajeda" on Justia Law

In response to sexual abuse allegations by another student, a Texas A&M panel found Plaintiff responsible for violating Texas A&M’s policy. Plaintiff sued Texas A&M and several university administrators for sex discrimination under Title IX and deprivation of constitutional due process under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court ultimately granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title IX erroneous outcome and 1983 due process claims. Thus, only Plaintiff’s Title IX selective enforcement claim was allowed to proceed. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. The district court then certified its rulings for interlocutory appeal on the grounds that they turn on two controlling questions of law.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and concluded that Texas A&M did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights. The court explained that Plaintiff received advanced notice of the allegations against him. He was permitted to call witnesses and submit relevant, non-harassing evidence of his innocence to a neutral panel of administrators. He was represented by counsel throughout the entirety of his disciplinary proceeding. He had the benefit of listening to the accuser’s description of the allegations directly. And he and his attorney had the opportunity to submit an unlimited number of questions to the disciplinary panel. View "Van Overdam v. Texas A & M Univ" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and his state habeas petition was also unsuccessful. Through state habeas counsel, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3599(a)(2), to assist him in preparing a petition for federal habeas relief. Petitioner identified specific attorneys he wanted to represent him. The district court granted Petitioner's motion for counsel, but appointed an attorney other than those requested by Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion under Sec. 3599(a)(2), seeking to substitute his court-appoitned counsel. The district court rejected Petitioner's request, holding he had not offered a sufficient basis for substituting counsel because the court-appointed conflict-free counsel was competent to handle death-penalty matters. Petitioner appealed the court's interlocutory order.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The court noted that it routinely reviews challenges to the denial of a motion to substitute counsel on appeal from a final judgment. Thus, the judgment petitioner challenged did not trigger the court's jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. View "Tracy v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Defendant made two social media posts indicating that he paid another man, who was positive for COVID-19, to lick every item at a local grocery store. Defendant did not actually pay the other man, but the posts "set off alarm bells" resulting in FBI agents being dispatched to the grocery store.Defendant was indicted and ultimately convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1) for orchestrating a hoax that simulated another crime. Defendant claimed on appeal that the biological-weapons statute did not extend to conduct such as licking items in a grocery store and that the terrorist-hoax statute is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The Fifth Circuit rejected Defendant's challenges, finding that although the biological-weapons statute does contain an implied exception for local crimes, Defendant's purported conduct was serious enough to place him within the purview of federal law enforcement, and threats like Defendant's are not protected by the First Amendment. View "USA v. Perez" on Justia Law

Appellee brought a retaliatory arrest claim against the Mayor and Chief of Police of Castle Hills, claiming that she was arrested for engaging in protected speech. However, Appellee acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest. Appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights in her retaliatory arrest claim because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest. While probable cause to arrest does not necessarily preclude a retaliatory arrest claim, Appellee failed to establish any of these exceptions. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from an alleged sexual assault committed by a law enforcement officer while he was conducting a welfare check on Plaintiff at her home. The district court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force failed because Plaintiff had not been seized, and that the Eighth Amendment claim failed because she was not a prisoner. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her claims under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as her claims against the County and Sheriff.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim, reversed the order of the district court with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth claim, and remanded. The court held that the Deputy’s alleged sexual abuse violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to bodily integrity. Thus, the Deputy is not entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained it need not reach the claims against the County and the Sheriff. The court remanded those issues to the district court to address in the first instance. View "Tyson v. County of Sabine" on Justia Law

The SEC accused Defendant of violating antifraud and registration provisions of the Securities Act and antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Defendant neither admitted nor denied those allegations but consented to a judgment containing four relevant prongs of relief. The SEC asked for “disgorgement” in that amount and calculated the prejudgment interest at $424,375.38. It did not specify the appropriate civil penalty but requested that the court impose one of the options in the highest tier allowed by statute.   The court entered final judgment ordering Defendant to pay $1,901,480 in “disgorgement” and $424,375.38 in prejudgment interest. It also imposed a civil penalty after concluding that Defendant’s conduct merited the highest amount provided by the Exchange Act   Defendant appealed each of those orders and the denial of an evidentiary hearing. He says the lack of an evidentiary hearing denied him due process. He also renews three substantive challenges to the district court’s remedies. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment order.   The court explained that none of Defendant’s challenges to the district court’s remedies has merit. He has foreclosed some of them by failing to raise them timely or to raise them properly. And Congress has foreclosed his position on the availability of disgorgement without tracing or a profit-generating res. The district court had authority to impose each element of its remedies, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. View "SEC v. Hallam" on Justia Law

A man detained at the Yazoo County Detention Center died after bleeding internally for hours. His survivors alleged that law enforcement officials knew that the man had been assaulted with a metal pipe and that he was vulnerable to internal bleeding if injured, yet they ignored requests for help from the man his family, and his fellow detainees, and left the man to suffer in his cell until it was too late. In rejecting the officials’ qualified immunity defense at summary judgment, the district court found numerous factual issues that, if resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor, would establish their liability on the federal denial-of-care claim. It did not, however, consider whether that constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the man’s death.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed Yazoo City’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the federal denial-of-medical-care claim, and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that it has granted qualified immunity when law enforcement misconstrued the symptoms of a serious medical condition for intoxication, or a less serious illness. Here, however, the officers’ knowledge of risk was based on much more than just symptoms: They also knew that the man had a life-threatening condition and had suffered trauma of the type that would trigger that condition. Those additional factors distinguish this case from the symptoms-only scenarios in Roberts and Cheney. Further, is clearly established that an official who refuses to treat or ignores the complaints of a detainee violates their rights. View "Williams, et al v. City of Yazoo, et al" on Justia Law