Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a partial stay of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Defense, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and United States Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccination requirements against 35 Navy special warfare personnel and prohibiting any adverse actions based on their religious accommodation requests. Specifically, defendants seek a partial stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction precludes them from considering plaintiffs' vaccination statuses "in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions."The court weighed the Mindes abstention factors and determined that this dispute is justiciable. However, the court concluded that defendants have not carried their burden to warrant the issuance of the stay. The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown a compelling interest to deny religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to each of the 35 plaintiffs at issue. Rather, the "marginal interest" in vaccinating each plaintiff appears to be negligible and thus defendants lack a sufficiently compelling interest to vaccinate plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the preliminary injunction does not irreparably damage the Navy and the public; partially staying the preliminary injunction pending appeal would substantially harm plaintiffs; and issuance of the requested stay would disserve the public interest. View "U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden" on Justia Law

One of two reports of an armed confrontation at the Eden Apartments identified one perpetrator as “Thomas Johnson,” who was driving a red truck with rims. Officer Green responded and encountered a stationary red truck near an elementary school, which had been closed for months. When Green exited his car, Johnson stepped out holding a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine. His brother was driving. Johnson ran toward the school. As vehicles passed nearby, Green drew his weapon and yelled, “Drop the gun!” Johnson continued to run, Green fired at him. Green chased Johnson into an open field and continued to chase Johnson, ordering him to drop the gun and instructing onlookers to lie on the ground. Officer McKinney, at the opposite side of the field, saw Johnson outrunning Green. Johnson changed direction toward a neighborhood. Johnson ignored orders to stop. McKinney fired at Johnson, who continued to flee. Both officers gave chase, repeatedly ordering Johnson to stop and drop the gun. When in range, both officers shot. Johnson fell and dropped his gun. Johnson died on the scene.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. The use of deadly force was not constitutionally excessive. The officers could have reasonably believed that Johnson threatened them and others with serious physical harm. View "Wilson v. City of Bastrop" on Justia Law

Officer Martin responded to a call about neighbors throwing trash in the caller’s yard. A subsequent 911 call came from the man’s neighbor, Craig, complaining that the man had grabbed her son by the neck because the boy had allegedly littered. Martin activated his body camera at the scene. Martin got into a verbal altercation with Craig; Craig’s 14-year-old, 15-year-old, and adult daughters became involved. Martin used physical force to get them into his squad car.Craig and her children sued Martin for unlawful arrest and excessive force. Craig also sued Martin on behalf of her another minor child, alleging injuries suffered as a bystander. The district court dismissed A.C.’s claim as incognizable; it dismissed the remaining claims for unlawful arrest, holding Martin was entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied Martin qualified immunity on the excessive force claims, concluding that the video evidence submitted by Martin was “too uncertain.” The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claims, expressing no opinion on the dismissal of the other claims. Martin’s actions were sufficiently measured in relation to the plaintiffs’ resistance. Martin’s conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not violate any of their Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs failed to provide any controlling precedent showing that Martin’s particular conduct violated a clearly established right. View "Craig v. Martin" on Justia Law

In 1991, McFarland and an accomplice robbed Kwan’s store. McFarland’s accomplice pressed a gun against a security guard’s head. The guard dropped his weapon. McFarland or the accomplice then fatally shot Kwan. Only McFarland was prosecuted. He is on death row. After exhausting his state remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first rejected a claim of ineffective assistance. During trial, McFarland’s retained counsel, Benn was sleeping throughout significant portions of the trial and otherwise presented as unprepared. The trial judge decided to appoint additional counsel. McFarland refused to agree, but the judge appointed Melamed to serve as “second chair.” Melamed was an experienced criminal defense lawyer but he had yet to try a capital case. McFarland repeatedly affirmed that he wanted to keep Benn as counsel and would not cooperate with Melamed in securing mitigation witnesses. The court also rejected Sixth Amendment and Brady claims. McFarland did not have counsel during an identification lineup; a finding that his arrest warrant was not a formal criminal complaint giving rise to his right to counsel was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, nor was a finding that “the prosecution did not fail to disclose.” View "McFarland v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for conspiracy to commit retaliatory employment termination. The court concluded that plaintiff plausibly averred that defendants deprived him of his First Amendment rights, and that defendants had fair warning that using their respective government positions to violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time. The court also concluded that plaintiff has also stated a claim for conspiracy under section 1983. View "Bevill v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Pennywell delivered his petition for direct review of his state conviction—which resulted in multiple life sentences—to prison guards for mailing. Through some unknown fault in the mailing process, the Louisiana Supreme Court never received the petition. Once Pennywell discovered the petition had never arrived at the Louisiana Supreme Court, he promptly refiled it. As a result of the untimeliness caused by the mailing failure of his first petition, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed his renewed petition for direct review as untimely. That decision was the basis for all subsequent denials of state and federal post-conviction relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pennywell’s petition, holding that Pennywell was entitled to equitable tolling. The failure to timely deliver the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court was through no fault of Pennywell; by the failure of the mail system, Pennywell was “prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Given the undisputed facts, Pennywell demonstrated due diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that justify equitable tolling. View "Pennywell v. Hooper" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit treated the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing; granted the petition for panel rehearing; and withdrew its prior opinion in this case.Plaintiffs, two Planned Parenthood entities and three Jane Does, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Louisiana Department of Health is unlawfully declining to act on Planned Parenthood's application for a license to provide abortion services in Louisiana. The district court denied the Department's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); the Department filed an interlocutory appeal; and plaintiffs moved to dismiss.The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal because the Department asserted sovereign immunity in the district court. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. The court further concluded that at least one of the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief is a valid invocation of federal jurisdiction under Ex parte Young. In this case, because plaintiffs' requested injunction to "promptly rule" on the license application satisfies the requirements of Ex parte Young, the court concluded that plaintiffs have survived the Department's Rule 12(b)(1) motion and the case may proceed. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Phillips" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit concluded that unresolved questions of state law must be certified to the Texas Supreme Court. The court certified the following questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Texas: Whether Texas law authorizes the Attorney General, Texas Medical Board, the Texas Board of Nursing, the Texas Board of Pharmacy, or the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, directly or indirectly, to take disciplinary or adverse action of any sort against individuals or entities that violate the Texas Heartbeat Act, given the enforcement authority granted by various provisions of the Texas Occupations Code, the Texas Administrative Code, and the Texas Health and Safety Code and given the restrictions on public enforcement in sections 171.005, 171.207 and 171.208(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code. View "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on failure to state a claim, of the complaint alleging a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim theorizing that defendants' refusal to return loaned funds violated the Takings Clause. The court applied Massó-Torrellas v. Mun. of Toa Alta, 845 F.3d 461, 468 (1st Cir. 2017), which held that when a municipality acts in a contractual or proprietary capacity, actions such as contract termination or detention of property under the contract that would constitute a simple breach of contract when a non-governmental entity is involved do not become a constitutional violation simply because the contracting party is a municipality. In this case, all of the misconduct in the complaint involves "commercial" and not "sovereign" acts, and thus any claim that Preston Hollow may have asserted should be a breach of contract claim rather than a taking claim. View "Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Cottonwood Development Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a jailer at the Shelby County Jail sexually assaulted him and other detainees, and that the sheriff violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural and substantive due process. On appeal, the sheriff challenges the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the alleged connection between the jailer's prior termination from the Shelby County Jail for abusing detainees and the alleged abuse of plaintiff and other detainees in the Shelby County Jail is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference in rehiring. However, plaintiff failed to allege any facts regarding the lack of a training program, nor are there allegations that the alleged abusive conduct occurred with such frequency that the sheriff was put on notice that training or supervision was needed. Whether the sheriff is liable for punitive damages is not part of the qualified immunity analysis, and this court does not have jurisdiction to consider this question in this interlocutory appeal. Finally, the court granted the sheriff's motion to strike. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Blackwell" on Justia Law