Latest 2 Cases: Cascabel Cattle Co., LLC v. United States (Agriculture Law), Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC (Legal Ethics)

Toxic Religious Liberty in the COVID-19 Era

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that governors and lawmakers should not be granting religious exemptions to stay-at-home orders imposed due to COVID-19. Hamilton points out that there are two prerequisites for legitimate religious exemptions, and the exemptions granted in twelve states have met neither.

Read More

Cascabel Cattle Co., LLC v. United States

Dockets: 19-40077, 19-40086, 19-40134

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Agriculture Law, Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the United States and others, alleging violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and seeking monetary damages associated with their loss of livestock following the implementation of a temporary fever tick quarantine. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the quarantine exception to the FTCA. The quarantine exception states that the statute's sovereign immunity waiver does not apply to any claim for damages caused by the imposition or establishment of a quarantine by the United States. In this case, plaintiffs' damages were caused by the implementation of the quarantine and thus defendants' challenged actions fell within the exception.

Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC

Docket: 18-50661

Opinion Date: April 6, 2020

Judge: Andrew S. Oldham

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics

After plaintiff filed suit against Portfolio under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law, the parties reached a settlement that forgave plaintiff's debt and awarded him $1,000 in damages. The district court then determined that plaintiff's attorneys did not settle his lawsuit quickly enough and consequently sanctioned them. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's sanction order, holding that the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Furthermore, the reasons the district court proffered for sanctions were meritless. Because the district court judge was not biased against plaintiff, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's recusal motion. In this case, the judge's ire was clearly directed at the attorneys, not plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, remanding for further proceedings.