Upcoming Execution Tests Trump Administration’s Commitment to Religious Liberty

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on a religious liberty issue presented by the upcoming execution of Wesley Ira Purkey. Sarat explains that Purkey’s spiritual advisor is unable to attend Purkey’s execution due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and he points out that for the federal government to carry out the execution anyway would belie its purported commitment to religious liberty.

Read More

S J Associated Pathologists, PLLC v. Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc.

Docket: 20-20188

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: James L. Dennis

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's final judgment compelling arbitration and dismissing the case, remanding with instructions that the case be remanded back to the state court. The court held that the claims between plaintiff and defendant do not derive from the same nucleus of fact as the federal claim that was the sole source of the district court's original jurisdiction, and thus the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

Doe v. Edgewood Independent School District

Docket: 19-50737

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district in an action brought by a student, alleging Title IX and constitutional claims stemming from her abuse by two school employees who were later criminally prosecuted. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, a school district is not liable under Title IX for teacher-on-student harassment unless the district, among other things, had "actual notice" of the misconduct and was "deliberately indifferent" to it. The court held that the school peace officer is not an "appropriate person" for purposes of Title IX. The court also held that the school district did not have knowledge of prior acts of sexual harassment that provided actual knowledge of a risk of substantial harm under Title IX. Finally, the court held that the school district does not have municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Wooten v. Roach

Docket: 19-40315

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Former Texas state judge Suzanne Wooten filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against state and local law enforcement officials, alleging that they violated the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting her in retaliation for unseating an incumbent judge and making rulings they disagreed with. At issue in this appeal was whether defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for their alleged acts. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court was without jurisdiction to accept Wooten's second amended complaint; that her first amended complaint remains operative; and that this appeal is not moot. The court also held that it has jurisdiction to hear defendants' appeal regarding prosecutorial immunity and Defendant White and Abbott's official immunity claims. However, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any defendant's appeal on qualified immunity and Defendants Roach and Milner's claims to official immunity. On the merits, the court held that Defendants Roach, White, and Abbott are each entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. However, the court held that Defendant Milner is not shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity because he was performing investigative functions that do not qualify for absolute immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Dyer v. City of Mesquite

Docket: 19-10280

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of their deliberate-indifference claims against paramedics and police officers employed by the City of Mesquite. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the death of their 18 year old son from self-inflicted head trauma while in police custody. He died after violently bashing his head over 40 times against the interior of a patrol car while being transported to jail. The court held that the complaint failed to allege facts that plausibly show the paramedics' deliberate indifference. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the paramedics failed to provide additional care. However, the court held that precedent has consistently recognized that deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm. The court also held that the district court correctly found a genuine dispute concerning whether Officers Gafford and Heidelburg were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a detainee in their custody. However, the court held that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to Officer Scott where there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Officer Scott, like Gafford and Heidelburg, acted with deliberate indifference to the son's serious medical needs. Furthermore, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the Officers' conduct contravened clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part.

United States v. Wallace

Docket: 17-40007

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. The court held that defendant's three prior Texas burglary convictions under Texas Penal Code 30.02 are generic and thus qualified defendant for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Defendant's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by United States v. Herrold (Herrold II), 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

GeoVera Specialty Insurance Co. v. Joachin

Dockets: 19-30604, 19-30672

Opinion Date: July 6, 2020

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the insurer's motion to dismiss an action brought by the insureds, seeking coverage of a residence destroyed by fire. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the insurer. The insureds had purchased the property with the intention of moving into it, but had not moved in before the fire burned down the house. The court held that Louisiana requires the insured to first prove coverage, after which the insurer can show that an exclusion applies. In this case, plaintiffs failed to show coverage where they repeatedly admitted that they never resided at the property; the insureds failed to satisfy the policy's residence requirement and the property was not a covered "residence premises;" and thus the vacancy exclusion did not apply under the circumstances. The court also held that the reside-at-inception policy is not absurd because insureds who had yet to move in purchased it. The court explained that purchasing the wrong insurance policy is not unheard of, and the law provides a remedy when the fault lies with the agent who procured it.