Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After the Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394, 1397 (2020), that the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated against the states in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense, movant moved for the Fifth Circuit's authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition.The court denied the motion for authorization to file a successive habeas corpus petition and held that, even if the court assumed that movant's current claim is different from the one he raised twelve years ago, it remains barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). The court explained that, even if it further assumed that Ramos constitutes a "new rule of constitutional law," the Supreme Court plainly has not made it retroactive to cases on collateral review. View "In Re: Larry Sharp" on Justia Law

In a prior criminal action, the state court agreed with the plaintiff in this case that Defendant Chapman, a Medical Board investigator, used illegally-obtained files to fabricate evidence and to indict plaintiff on trumped-up charges of running a pill mill. Here, plaintiff filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Chapman and another government agent for violating his constitutional rights by using instanter subpoenas to illegally search his clinic, resulting in the illegal seizure of property and patient records.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and held that Chapman was not entitled to absolute immunity as an investigator and, because Chapman fulfilled the fact-finding role generally filled by law enforcement, she is only entitled to the level of immunity available to law enforcement -- qualified immunity. The court also held that malicious prosecution and abuse of process are not viable theories of constitutional injury. The court agreed with defendants that malicious prosecution and abuse of process are torts, not constitutional violations. However, the court remanded for the district court to decide whether plaintiff has waived his Fourth Amendment claims and whether he should be allowed to amend his complaint a third time to add a due process claim. View "Morgan v. Chapman" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) based on a Confrontation Clause violation. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and aggravated battery.The court first held that the state intentionally waived its defense of procedural default. The court also held that the state district court's decision that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred through the handling of a detective's testimony constitutes an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, and the state waived harmlessness. In this case, the detective testified that a nontestifying witness implicated petitioner and the prosecution likewise referenced that testimony in its closing argument. Therefore, such testimony violates the Confrontation Clause. The court remanded for the district court to grant habeas relief. View "Atkins v. Hooper" on Justia Law

After petitioner filed a second-in-time habeas petition raising Brady and actual innocence claims, the district court concluded that the petition was successive and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of a police officer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's transfer order, holding that the petition is second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244. The court explained that, even though petitioner did not know of the State's alleged Brady violation at the time he filed his first habeas petition, it is still subject to the statutory requirements for filing a successive petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the district court did not err in transferring the habeas petition to this court.The court granted the motion for authorization, holding that petitioner made a prima facie showing that the factual predicate for his Brady claim could not have been previously discovered through due diligence. The court also held that petitioner has made a prima facie showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable factfinder would find him guilty. In this case, petitioner has demonstrated that it is reasonably likely that, after hearing the Hit Document and the Schifani Report, every reasonable juror would have some level of reasonable doubt. View "Will v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Petitioner alleged claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (IAAC) based on state appellate counsel's failure to raise a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), claim on direct appeal.The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in failing to explicitly review the merits of the IAAC claim. The court also held that the magistrate judge's conclusion that no Batson violation occurred establishes that appellate counsel's failure to raise the Batson challenge on direct appeal did not prejudice petitioner. Therefore, petitioner failed to satisfy the elements of his IAAC claim. View "Moore v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

TSRA filed suit seeking to enjoin demolitions under the city's new ordinance, DALL. CITY CODE 51A-4.501(i), which streamlined the city's procedure for demolishing dilapidated historical homes smaller than 3,000 feet. The district court dismissed TSRA's claims.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that TSRA does not have standing to assert its claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or its 42 U.S.C.1982 and 1983 claims. In regard to the FHA claim, the court held that TSRA failed to prove that its injuries are traceable to the city's alleged misconduct and that its injuries are redressable by judgment in its favor. In this case, TSRA did not put forth any separate theories of standing for its sections 1982 and 1983 claims. Therefore, even assuming that TSRA established a constitutional injury-in-fact for purposes of sections 1982 and 1983, the court held that these claims would likewise suffer the same traceability and redressability defects as its FHA claims. View "Tenth Street Residential Ass'n v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on petitioner's claim that his trial counsel failed to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing in violation of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039 (1984).Even when reviewed de novo, the court held that counsel's statements during summation and sentencing did not amount to a complete failure to mount a defense and thus Cronic does not apply. In this case, counsel did not entirely fail to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing. Rather, counsel actively advocated on petitioner's behalf throughout the trial and he moved to suppress evidence; he cross-examined the state's witnesses on their identification of petitioner as the culprit, ultimately impeaching several of them and prompting the arguably most critical witness to admit she lied to the police; cross-examined the detectives involved in the underlying investigation on their search and arrest of petitioner, as well as the subsequent handling of evidence; and counsel did not abandon petitioner by conceding the only factual issues in dispute. View "Thomas v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a citizen suit against Exxon, seeking to recover from more than 16,000 Clean Air Act violations arising from the Baytown, Texas complex.The Fifth Circuit held that Clean Air Act plaintiffs must prove standing for each violation in support of their claims. The court held that the evidence supports the district court's findings of injury, traceability, and redressability for a number of the violations. However, a limited remand is needed for the district court to determine what other violations could have contributed to plaintiffs' members' injuries and then to tabulate its findings. The court noted that it does not require line-by-line findings, but that the district court may group violations. Furthermore, plaintiffs have standing for at least some of the violations that Exxon asserts affirmative defenses against. The court remanded for findings on whether Exxon proved its Act of God defense for the relatively small number of violations occurring during Hurricane Ike. The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Exxon's Rule 52(b) motion, because Exxon failed to meet its burden in supporting its no-fault defenses by failing to identify evidence establishing that it met the relevant criteria for each individual emissions event. Because the court remanded for the district court to determine the number of violations for which plaintiffs have standing, as well as whether Exxon proved its Act of God defense for any violations, the court will also have to reassess the penalties. View "Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

Vickers was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The PSR concluded that he was an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) career offender based on his prior Texas felony convictions for murder, burglary of a habitation, and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. In 2007, the court sentenced Vickers to 190 months’ imprisonment, which was adjusted to 168 months to give him credit for 22 months served in Texas state prisons for a related state offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.In 2015, Vickers filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion alleging that his prior convictions no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Johnson decision. The Fifth Circuit authorized a successive section 2555 motion to address the Texas murder conviction but denied his request to challenge his sentence based on the argument that his Texas burglary conviction no longer qualifies. The district court vacated Vickers’s sentence and resentenced him to 98 months. The Fifth Circuit vacated, applying the categorical approach to conclude that the statute under which Vickers was convicted meets the ACCA’s definition of a violent felony as involving “physical force against the person of another.” View "United States v. Vickers" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim that the state violated her rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and that her attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.The court held that, even assuming that counsel performed deficiently by failing to call petitioner's family to testify about her character and the struggles she endured, the state court reasonably found that petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Furthermore, after weighing the mitigation evidence against the aggravating evidence, the aggravating evidence outweighed the mitigation evidence. The court also held that, although counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the erroneous instruction regarding Texas's law of parties, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court further held that petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the statements concerning parole availability is without merit. Finally, the court held that the state court properly rejected the Batson claim where the prosecution presented a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge. View "Sheppard v. Davis" on Justia Law