Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After TABC investigated Spec's and brought a largely unsuccessful administrative action against it, Spec's filed suit against TABC. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), reasoning that defendants were entitled to various forms of immunity.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from Spec's' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims regarding administrative holds, protests of applications, and denials of renewals. However, the district court erred by concluding that defendants are absolutely immune from Spec's' section 1983 individual-capacity claim regarding the concealment of evidence. The court also held that the district court correctly determined that sovereign immunity bars Spec's' official-capacity claims for damages and for injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court also correctly held that defendants are entitled to state-action immunity from Spec's' antitrust claims, and that Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 102.07(a)(7) is not a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Finally, the court held that the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Spec's' state-law malicious prosecution claim must be vacated because the grounds for that decision are no longer applicable. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Spec's Family Partners, Ltd. v. Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging retaliation under Title VII, based on lack of statutory standing. Plaintiff was employed by Prelle Financial Group as a third-party wholesaler of life-insurance products to clients of UBS. Plaintiff alleged that he was the intentional target of the retaliation against his daughter, who was an employee of UBS.The court agreed with the district court and held that plaintiff's nonemployee status forecloses his statutory standing to sue because Title VII claims require an employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The court held that plaintiff's daughter's status as an employee is not enough to deposit plaintiff into federal court. Rather, plaintiff must show that his personal interests are arguably covered, which he has failed to do. View "Simmons v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a correctional officer and several staff members and administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state tort law, for allegedly failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. After defendants successfully moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to allege that the correctional officer was negligent, much less that he consciously disregarded any risk of serious harm when the inmate attacked plaintiff. In this case, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment based on the affidavit of a fellow inmate who claimed to have witnessed at least one food-slot attack a week, and often more than one a day, over the past fifteen years. The court held that the inmate's claim to have witnessed roughly a thousand food-slot assaults was not credible and that even if it was, it did not demonstrate that defendants were aware of a specific danger to plaintiff. Finally, the court denied all pending motions as moot. View "Torres v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Almost three years after a federal district court declared that Texas Senate Bill 8 placed an undue burden on a woman's right to access a previability abortion and enjoined its enforcement, the State seeks to stay the judgment.The Fifth Circuit denied the state's motion for a stay and held that June Medical Servs. LLC v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), has not disturbed the undue-burden test, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), remains binding law in this circuit. Under this circuit's reading of the Marks principle, that the challenged Louisiana law posed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion is the full extent of June Medical's ratio decidendi. The court stated that the decision does not furnish a new controlling rule as to how to perform the undue-burden test. Therefore, the court held that Hellerstedt's formulation of the test continues to govern this case, and because the district court correctly applied Hellerstedt's balancing test, remand is not warranted.The court also held that the state's law is patently procedurally defective where the state's failure to show the impracticability of moving first in the district court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(2) is sufficient grounds to deny its motion. View "Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the efforts of New Jersey's Attorney General and others to thwart plaintiffs' distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms, alleging infringement of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and state law claims. The district court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2008).The Fifth Circuit held that the Attorney General has established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to subject him to the jurisdiction of Texas' courts. The court held that Stroman is distinguishable from this case in at least two key respects: first, many of plaintiffs' claims are based on the Attorney General's cease-and-desist letter; and second, the Attorney General's assertion of legal authority is much broader than the public official in Stroman. Furthermore, the Attorney General failed to timely raise arguments regarding whether judgment in plaintiffs favor would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court applied the principles discussed in Wien Air Alaska, Inc. v. Brandt, 195 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1999), and Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984), and held that jurisdiction over the Attorney General is proper. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Defense Distributed v. Grewal" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner claimed that he was improperly denied release to home confinement under the First Step Act's Elderly Offender Home Detention Program.The court liberally construed the petition as asserting a Bivens civil rights claim and held that Congress has vested the executive branch, not the judicial branch, with the power to decide which prisoners may participate in the Program. In this case, petitioner argued in the district court that defendant wrongly declined petitioner's request for participation in the Program based on a prior disciplinary proceeding for which he was sanctioned for "attempted escape." The court explained that petitioner's claim would have required the district court to assess his prior actions and make a determination as to whether those actions constituted an escape attempt. However, only defendant had authority to make that determination for purposes of petitioner's eligibility for the Program. The court stated that 34 U.S.C. 60541(g) does not give federal courts the power to do so. The court held that petitioner did not raise a due process argument involving his prior disciplinary proceedings in the district court and may not raise them for the first time on appeal. View "Melot v. Bergami" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was a successive habeas petition. The court held that when a court order disposes of a habeas claim on procedural and, in the alternative, substantive grounds, a Rule 60(b) motion contesting this order inherently presents a successive habeas petition. In this case, petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion—facially challenging a procedural ruling and implicitly challenging a merits determination—presents a habeas claim. Therefore, the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.The court also affirmed the denial of petitioner's inherent-prejudice claim where petitioner identifies no clearly established law that the CCA misapplied, nor any unreasonable factual determinations on which that court based its holding. View "Will v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's summary judgment dismissal of her action for intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as retaliation under Louisiana's Whistleblower Statute (LWS).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's discrimination claims, rejecting plaintiff's claim of intentional discrimination rooted in Christwood's failure to timely list her with the state as a director, claim of discriminatory pay, claim of discriminatory demotion, and claim of constructive discharge. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's whistleblower claim, holding that Christwood was plaintiff's employer. Because the district court concluded that Christwood was not an employer, it failed to address the remainder of plaintiff's LWS claim. Therefore, the court vacated the dismissal of the LWS claim and remanded for further consideration. View "Sanders v. Christwood" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart for retaliation and wrongful termination and an assistant manager at Wal-Mart for tortious interference with an employment contract. Plaintiff alleged that she was fired after she reported her supervisor for sexually harassing other Wal-Mart employees. Wal-Mart alleged that plaintiff was terminated because she violated Wal-Mart’s Investigation and Detention of Shoplifters Policy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiff has met her prima facie burden of causation by showing close enough timing between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. However, the temporal proximity between plaintiff's protected activity and her termination is relevant to, but not alone sufficient to demonstrate, pretext. The court also held that a reasonable jury could not find that the supervisor's actions were the but-for cause of Wal-Mart's termination of plaintiff based on the record. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Government, alleging that the male-only military draft unlawfully discriminates based on sex. The Military Selective Service Act requires essentially all male citizens and immigrants between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six to register with the Selective Service System. The district court granted plaintiffs declaratory judgment and held that requiring only men to register for the draft violated their Fifth Amendment rights.The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court's judgment directly contradicts the Supreme Court's holding in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 78–79 (1981). In Rostker, the Supreme Court held that the male-only Selective Service registration requirement did not offend due process where women at the time were barred from combat. The court explained that here, as in State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22 (1997), the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed, but that does not grant a court of appeals license to disregard or overrule that precedent. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case. View "National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System" on Justia Law