Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The phrase "officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice," as it is used in 34 U.S.C. 12601(a), does not include the judges of a county youth court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action under section 12601, alleging that Lauderdale County and its two Youth Court judges operated a "school-to-prison pipeline" and, through their administration of the juvenile justice process, were engaged in patterns or practices that denied juveniles their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the lawsuit against the judges on the basis that they are outside the scope of Section 12601, and because the government has affirmatively waived any other argument for continuing the lawsuit against the County. View "United States v. Lauderdale County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Allred Unit of the TDCJ, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an officer at the Allred Unit, a disciplinary captain, and the former director of TDCJ. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that plaintiff's due process claim regarding the disciplinary hearing must be raised in a habeas corpus petition and plaintiff's due process claim regarding the seizure of his personal property was not cognizable under section 1983. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the courts because he failed to establish the actual harm necessary, and the retaliation claim because he failed to demonstrate a retaliatory intent.The court denied in part, holding that the seizure of plaintiff's religious materials burdened a sincere religious practice and defendants failed to put forward any legitimate government interest justifying the seizure. However, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim against the disciplinary captain and the former director. View "DeMarco v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for federal habeas relief for petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding photographs from petitioner's childhood that were offered as mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase where the exclusion of the photographs did not have a substantial or injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict; while the furlough testimony would not have been accurate if given after the legislative amendment, it was valid at the time it was given and a subsequent change to the statute did not make the earlier testimony—based on an earlier version of the law—invalid; and the state court was not unreasonable in rejecting petitioner's Batson challenges. View "Rhoades v. Davis" on Justia Law

Provider Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction against the OIG's decision to terminate the Medicaid provider agreements to Planned Parenthood affiliates throughout the state. The district court held that the Individual Plaintiffs possessed a private right of action under the "qualified-provider" provision of the Medicaid Act and issued a preliminary injunction.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in evaluating the evidence de novo, rather than under the arbitrary and capricious standard, and in applying the reasoning in Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017), to its determination of a "qualified" provider in this context. Therefore, the district court erred legally and plaintiffs were unlikely to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for the district court to limit its review to the agency record under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. View "Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's final judgment in an action alleging that an IRS test for determining certain liabilities was facially unconstitutional. The court held that Freedom Path did not have standing to bring this facial challenge and therefore the court dismissed the action based on lack of jurisdiction. In this case, plaintiff's claimed chilled speech injury was not fairly traceable to the text of Revenue Ruling 2004-6. View "Freedom Path, Inc. v. IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Chief Justice Valdez in his individual and official capacities, arguing that Valdez intervened in plaintiff's hiring as retaliation for plaintiff filing a complaint against Valdez. The Fifth Circuit held that Valdez is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established as of May 2014 that where a briefing attorney swore as part of his employment to comply with a code of conduct requiring him to report judicial misconduct to a specific state authority, he nonetheless spoke as a citizen in reporting a judge to that authority. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying Valdez's motion for summary judgment in both his official and individual capacity. View "Anderson v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action alleging race and discrimination claims. After an internal affairs investigation regarding the injury of an arrestee was conducted, plaintiff and others were transferred to positions in the corrections department which defendant, the sheriff, believed were less likely to result in arrests. Plaintiff decided to quit rather than accept the transfer. Plaintiff never applied to resume work.In regard to the discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group and as to whether he was replaced with someone outside his protected class. In regard to the retaliation claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact showing that his employer took an adverse employment action against him and that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. View "Thomas v. Tregre" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action alleging claims of wrongful imprisonment, free speech retaliation, and procedural due process against Defendant Reed (District Attorney for Washington Parish, Louisiana) and Defendant Cox (a minister in Franklinton, Louisiana). The court held that the district court erred by relying on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), to dismiss plaintiff's wrongful imprisonment and free speech retaliation claims, and by resolving a genuine dispute of material fact at the summary judgment stage to dismiss plaintiff's due process claim. In this case, after plaintiff informed the FBI about defendants' unlawful business dealings, plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated for 101 days based on a "DA Hold," which the parties agree was not recognized by law. View "Magee v. Reed" on Justia Law

After Laura S. was killed shortly after returning to Mexico, her representatives filed suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), against a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent and his supervisor. In this case, Laura entered the country illegally, was detained in CBP custody, and subsequently signed a form indicating her decision to repatriate voluntarily. Plaintiffs alleged that Laura was coerced into signing the voluntary removal form and was denied her due process rights, causing her death.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that special factors precluded the extension of a Bivens remedy to this new context. The court also held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the agent's conduct was not objectively unreasonable. View "Maria S. v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, BNSF, for disability discrimination and retaliation after he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and later placed on medical leave by the company. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for BNSF on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim, holding that even assuming BNSF's alleged safety concerns were legitimate and non-discriminatory, the totality of the circumstances created a material fact issue as to whether BNSF's proffered reasons for refusing to reinstate plaintiff were merely pretextual.The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the retaliation claim and held that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a causal link between the filing of his EEOC claim and his continued placement on medical leave. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Nall v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law