Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit granted the Secretary's motion to stay the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Texas House Bill 25 (HB 25), which eliminates straight-ticket voting. The court applied the factors for ruling on a stay and observed the Supreme Court's repeated emphasis that courts should not alter election rules on the eve of an election.In staying a preliminary injunction that would change election laws eighteen days before early voting begins, the court recognized the value of preserving the status quo in a voting case on the eve of an election, and found that the traditional factors for granting a stay favor granting one here. In this case, the Secretary has shown that she is likely to succeed on the merits that the district court erred in issuing an injunction that altered the status quo of Texas election law this close in time to an election. Furthermore, the Secretary has met the burden of showing irreparable injury absent a stay; any harms to plaintiffs do not outweigh the other preliminary factors; and public interest weighs heavily in favor of a stay. View "Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Hughs" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of murder and aggravated assault. Because of petitioner's prior convictions at the time of the shooting, he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Therefore, the jury could consider petitioner's failure to retreat in evaluating the reasonableness of his actions. In this case, petitioner claimed that he fired the weapon in self-defense and that his lawyer did not tell him that the jury could consider his failure to retreat under Texas law.The court held, under the Strickland test, that counsel's performance fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance when he was silent on a central component of the self-defense statute and thus petitioner could not appreciate the extraordinary risks of passing up the State's plea offer. However, under the Frye prejudice test, the court held that petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof by showing that the prosecution would not withdraw the plea or that the court would have accepted it. View "Anaya v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of various constitutional rights and under Louisiana tort law. In this case, after defendant approached, questioned, and reached to grab plaintiff outside of his home, plaintiff fled, fell off a fence, and dislocated his shoulder.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the unreasonable search claim and remanded for the district court to consider qualified immunity before proceeding to the merits of the case. The court stated that details in the complaint make plausible the allegation that defendant's search of the curtilage of plaintiff's home was unreasonable insofar as it infringed on plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy and exigent circumstances were lacking. However, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unreasonable seizure claim.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining section 1983 claims, holding that plaintiff failed to state a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, because he failed to plausibly allege that his ultimate arrest was false; failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution under section 1983 because, as the district court correctly observed, there is no freestanding right under the Constitution to be free from malicious prosecution; and failed to state a claim for a violation of procedural and substantive due process because resort to a generalized remedy under the Due Process Clause is inappropriate where a more specific constitutional provision provides the rights at issue. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to allege a claim under Louisiana law for infliction of emotional distress. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the three evidentiary rulings appealed by plaintiff. View "Arnold v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Officer Currie's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, alleging constitutional violations after Mark Mayfield committed suicide. The Madison Police Department had arrested Mark and two conspirators, and the basis for the arrest warrant was the affidavit of Currie, who stated that Mark had communicated with conspirators and assisted them in their effort to photograph the wife of United States Senator Thad Cochran in an assisted living facility. Currie claims that there was no constitutional violation because the issuance of the arrest warrant broke the causal chain, immunizing her from liability.The court held that there are two ways to overcome the independent-intermediary doctrine: first, in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344–45 (1986), the Supreme Court held that an officer can be held liable for a search authorized by a warrant when the affidavit presented to the magistrate was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable; and second, under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and its progeny, officers who deliberately or recklessly provide false, material information for use in an affidavit or who make knowing and intentional omissions that result in a warrant being issued without probable cause may still be held liable.The court held that, under Malley, the information Currie and other investigators provided to the magistrate throughout the course of their investigation clearly was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue a warrant for Mark's arrest. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs adequately alleged wrongdoing under Malley. The court remanded to the district court for further consideration of Franks. View "Mayfield v. Currie" on Justia Law

Wardrip committed five murders in Texas in 1984-1986.. He surrendered to police and confessed to his last murder. Wardrip was released on parole in 1997. After DNA testing connected Wardrip to unsolved murders, he was arrested and confessed to four other murders. At trial, the state introduced Wardrip’s prison disciplinary record, with only two infractions during his 11 years in prison. Wardrip’s defense counsel called a parole officer and an employer to testify to Wardrip’s good behavior while on parole. Waldrip’s attorney, Curry, later explained that suggesting Wardrip had rehabilitated would have required putting Wardrip on the stand. Curry wanted jurors to focus on the fact that Wardrip was not a disciplinary problem and not a danger to anyone if imprisoned for life. The jury found that Wardrip would be a threat to society and that mitigating circumstances did not warrant life imprisonment. The court sentenced Wardrip to death. Texas courts denied habeas relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of federal habeas relief. It was not an “unreasonable determination of the facts” for the state court to find that Curry had conducted a reasonable investigation that made him aware of Wardrip’s good conduct while imprisoned and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding what evidence to present, satisfying Strickland’s standard for effective assistance of counsel. It was also reasonable for the court to conclude that whatever else Curry might have done, the failure to take those steps had not prejudiced Wardrip. View "Wardrip v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Vialva was convicted under federal law of capital murder and sentenced to death. Since his 2000 conviction, Vialva’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; his 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenge was denied; and his effort to vacate the denial of his section 2255 motion under FRCP 60(b) failed. The Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled Vialva’s execution for September 24, 2020, and informed Vialva on July 31, 2020. Vialva moved to enjoin his execution.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Vialva is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his primary argument on appeal, that Texas state law should have been followed with respect to the issuance of an execution warrant and the setting of execution dates. Vialva has not shown the remaining factors favor a stay of execution. Vialva has thoroughly litigated his conviction and sentence. He was given official notice well in advance of his execution date. Vialva is not challenging his death sentence, but only the pre-execution procedures for carrying it out. The public’s interest in timely enforcement of the death sentence outweighs Vialva’s request for more time. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss Sahara's suit for injunctive relief in a Medicare recoupment case, holding that the government provided Sahara adequate process. Applying the Mathews factors, the court held that the sufficiency of the current procedures and the minimal benefit of the live hearing weighs so strongly against Sahara that its due process claim fails. In this case, Sahara received some procedure, chose to forego additional protections, and cannot demonstrate the additional value of the hearing it requests. The court also held that Sahara failed to state a claim for ultra vires actions under 42 U.S.C. 1395ff. View "Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CBP and others, alleging constitutional violations after his truck and its contents were seized at the United States-Mexico border. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied as moot plaintiff's motion to certify the class.Given the broad allegations in the complaint and the court's balancing of the Mathews factors, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a procedural due process violation. In this case, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the constitutional inadequacy of the existing procedures, nor has he shown that the available processes are unavailable or patently inadequate. Furthermore, the court's conclusion that the additional process plaintiff seeks is not constitutionally required in this context is consistent with United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the bond requirement violates due process. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of plaintiff's due process class claims for failure to state a claim, and affirmed the denial of his motion for class certification as moot. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Bivens claim where plaintiff failed to set forth any facts specifically identifying what Defendant Espinoza or any unnamed Customs officers did to violate his rights. View "Serrano v. Customs and Border Patrol" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former medical school professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, filed suit against various professors and school administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Defendants voted to recommend firing plaintiff after conducting a hearing to address a student's sexual harassment claim against him.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and rendered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that plaintiff's deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights. In this case, the court found no merit in plaintiff's claim that one of the defendants was not impartial because the defendant knew the accuser in a university proceeding, and concluded that this was not enough to establish a due process claim of bias. The court also held that, although the Committee should have heard the accuser's testimony, it was not clearly established at the time that, in university disciplinary hearings where the outcome depends on credibility, the Due Process Clause demands the opportunity to confront witnesses or some reasonable alternative. Therefore, the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. View "Walsh v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, REJ, alleging claims of hostile work environment, gender discrimination, disparate pay, Title VII and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1985 conspiracy, and breach of contract.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's disparate pay, hostile work environment, and breach of contract claims. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees. However, the court held that plaintiff has satisfied her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to show that whether her termination was pretext for unlawful retaliation remains a disputed issue of fact that must be determined by the appropriate fact finder. Therefore, the court reversed and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. View "Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Inc." on Justia Law