US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
USA v. Hill, et al

Docket: 19-20251
Opinion Date: May 24, 2022
Judge: James L. Dennis
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Four Defendants were involved in an armored car robbery at a bank automated teller machine. Defendants were each convicted of aiding and abetting robbery, attempted robbery, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence causing the death of a person.

Defendants each raised multiple issues challenging their convictions and sentences and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendants failed to show that any potential error affected their substantial rights.

The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in shackling Defendant. The court reasoned that even taking as true Defendant’s assertion that the jury saw his shackles when he was removed from the courtroom, this was a brief and inadvertent exposure. Therefore, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice. He does not present any evidence showing that he was actually prejudiced.

Next, the district court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily removing Defendant from the courtroom following his outburst. The court explicitly warned Defendant more than once to cease his disruptive conduct lest he be removed.

Moreover, the court found that one of the Defendant’s outbursts falls short of the rare circumstances in which a codefendant’s disruption results in incurable prejudice such that a mistrial is required. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the co-defendant’s motion to sever because the charges against the co-defendant do not differ dramatically from those against his codefendants.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Jarkesy v. SEC

Docket: 20-61007
Opinion Date: May 18, 2022
Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod
Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Constitutional Law

The SEC brought an enforcement action within the agency against Petitioners for securities fraud. An SEC administrative law judge adjudged Petitioners liable and ordered various remedies, and the SEC affirmed on appeal over several constitutional arguments that Petitioners raised.
 
The Fifth Circuit held that (1) the SEC’s in-house adjudication of Petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of “all” legislative power in Congress; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II.
 
The court reasoned that the Seventh Amendment guarantees Petitioners a jury trial because the SEC’s enforcement action is akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches. Further, the SEC proceedings at issue suffered from another constitutional infirmity: the statutory removal restrictions for SEC ALJs are unconstitutional.

Read Opinion

Louisiana v. Spell

Docket: 2021-KK-00876
Opinion Date: May 13, 2022
Judge: Crain
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Mark Spell was the pastor of a church in Central, Louisiana. On March 31, 2020, he was issued six misdemeanor citations for violating two executive orders issued by Louisiana Governor Edwards in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Louisiana Supreme Court found certain provisions of those two executive orders, as applied to defendant, violated his fundamental right to exercise religion, did not survive strict scrutiny, and were thus unconstitutional.

Read Opinion

New program helps Lafourche inmates build relationships outside their cells

www.wwltv.com/article/news/local/lafourche-terrebonne/new-program-helps-lafourche-inmates-build-relationships-outside-their-cells/289-19a246d5-c576-4d3a-bb48-9527b68a7079

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
USA v. Tucker

Docket: 21-30194
Opinion Date: May 9, 2022
Judge: Don R. Willett
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was involuntarily committed to the emergency room for protective custody after law enforcement found he was a danger to himself or others. He remained committed for 15 days. Two weeks later, Defendant was again committed, this time for 13 days. Several years later, in 2019, Defendant bought a firearm. In doing so, he answer negatively to the question asking if he'd ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. Subsequently, Defendant attempted to buy firearms two other times. An ATF warned Defendant he was ineligible to purchase a firearm, which did not deter Defendant.

Defendant was arrested and charged with three counts of making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer and two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition. The indictment alleged only that Defendant had been adjudicated as a “mental defective”; it did not mention commitment. However, the district court instructed the jury it could find him guilty if he was adjudicated as a mental defective or if he had been committed.

The Fifth Circuit found that the district court committed plain error when it instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it could he had been committed. The instructions allowed the jury to convict based on uncharged conduct. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed Defendant's convictions.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Cisneros Guerrero, et al v. Occidental Petro, et a

Docket: 20-20633
Opinion Date: May 5, 2022
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law

Defendant, a foreign oil company, contracted with Ecuador to develop an oil-rich region of the rainforest. Defendant paid its Ecuadorian employees a sizable portion of its annual profits. The government canceled the exploration contract and expropriated Occidental’s property, leading to massive losses. Profits and profit-sharing abruptly ceased. Occidental sought arbitration and, a decade later, received a nearly billion-dollar settlement from Ecuador. Plaintiffs, a group of Occidental’s former Ecuadorian employees, then sued Occidental, claiming the arbitration settlement represented profits they were entitled to share. The district court correctly dismissed the employees’ claims.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims holding that Defendant owes its former employees no shared profits for the relevant year. The court reasoned that under the plain terms of Ecuadorian law, a company’s profit-sharing obligation depends on the profits lawfully declared in its annual tax returns. Plaintiffs maintained that tax returns are “not the exclusive mechanism for determining profit-sharing liability.” However, the court held Ecuador's law is clear that the calculation [of profits shall be conducted on the basis of the declarations or determinations prepared for the payment of Income Tax, and Occidental’s tax returns for the interrupted year of 2006 showed not profits but losses.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Turner v. GoAuto Insurance

Docket: 22-30103
Opinion Date: May 2, 2022
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Personal Injury

Plaintiff filed a petition for damages in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. Plaintiff totaled his car in an accident and alleged that GoAuto, his car insurance carrier, paid less in policy benefits than his policy and Louisiana law required. GoAuto filed its notice of removal, Plaintiff received permission from the Louisiana court to amend his complaint again and, as accepted on appeal, filed the amended complaint. This amendment changed the definition of the class from class “residents of Louisiana” to class “citizens of Louisiana.” After removal, the parties filed several competing motions disputing which complaint controlled and the sufficiency of GoAuto’s notice of
removal.
 
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order remanding the case to state court, finding that Defendant is a citizen of Louisiana and thus the suit lacks the minimal diversity necessary to vest a federal court with jurisdiction. The court declined Defendant’s request to disregard the Louisiana state court’s pre-removal procedural rulings applying Louisiana law and substituted its own Erie guesses at how a Louisiana court ought to rule on a motion to amend a pleading.
 
Further, in regards to Defendant’s argument that it is plausible that some class members are not citizens of Louisiana, the court held that none of these individuals, assuming they had relocated to Colorado, Texas, or Florida before the filing of the complaint, qualify as citizens of Louisiana. Finally, the court held that Defendant points to nothing in the text of the statute that would bar Plaintiff’s class definition.

Read Opinion

Bill to prevent transgender women from participating in girls' sports moves forward


www.lsureveille.com/news/bill-to-prevent-transgender-women-from-participating-in-girls-sports-moves-forward/article_f64154de-cbf8-11ec-adf0-4729ea9ec98c.html

Student discipline bill advanced by Louisiana House committee


www.houmatimes.com/news/student-discipline-bill-advanced-by-louisiana-house-committee/

Insurance Commissioner Donelon Releases Updated Hurricane Ida Data


www.houmatimes.com/news/insurance-commissioner-donelon-releases-updated-hurricane-ida-data/