September 29, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Mack, 21-20279, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Jolly, Smith, Engelhardt), Jolly, J., dissenting in part; First Amendment
    • Reversing summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging Texas Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack’s opening of court with a ceremony that includes a prayer, and rendering judgment in favor of Mack. The Court held this was “a zero-pence case,” with a lack of evidence showing coercion dooming the plaintiffs’ case.
    • Although the Court opined that “the Establishment Clause has repeatedly gotten special treatment when it comes to standing,” intimating that injury from public religious exercise does not rise above the generalized grievance of members of the public that would be particular enough to confer standing, the Court held that it was bound by precedent to recognize the plaintiffs’ standing.
    • The Court held that, under Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014), Mack’s opening of court sessions with a prayer offered by one of the chaplains in the court’s chaplaincy program did not violate the Establishment Clause.
      • The Court held that evidence of “a broader tradition” of public, government-sponsored prayer supported a historical record of such prayer, regardless whether there was a more specific tradition of more sectarian prayer specifically in the judicial context. “That evidence is relevant, if at all, because widespread practice around the Founding [and incorporation] helps reveal an amendment’s original public meaning.”
      • The Court held that, while there may be a genuine dispute as to whether Mack’s prayer ceremony included sectarian prayers, “it held “such dispute is immaterial” because the content of a prayer is of no concern to judges. “There is no suggestion that Mack’s chaplains have preached damnation, denigration, or conversion. So we may not concern ourselves with the prayers’ contents.”
      • The Court also held that there was no evidence that Mack failed to adhere to a policy of nondiscrimination in selecting chaplain’s to participate in the opening prayer.
      • On the issue of coercion, the Court adopted Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion from Galloway as the controlling standard, which requires a fact-intensive and holistic approach to determine whether objective benefits or detriments existed–beyond subjective offense–based on participation or non-participation in the prayer. Specifically, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that a courtroom is an inherently coercive context for prayer, and instead held that perception of prejudice in a particular situation must be objectively reasonable. Reviewing the evidence here, the Court held that “Mack’s practice is noncoercive.”
    • “To maintain a lawful prayer ceremony, Mack must ensure that (1) he has a policy of denominational nondiscrimination and that (2) anyone may choose not to participate and suffer no consequences. Mack has shown that the plaintiffs fail materially to dispute those elements.”
    • Judge Jolly dissented in part. While he agreed that summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs should be reversed, he disagreed that summary judgment in favor of Mack should be rendered. “For the majority to find that there is no evidence of coercion, suggests, in my opinion, willful blindness and indisputable error. … [R]elated to the first point above, the majority impermissibly engages in factfinding, resolving numerous material factual disputes.”
  • Campaign Legal Center v. Scott, 22-50692, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Ho, Wilson), Ho, J., concurring; election law, standing
    • Reversing injunctive relief to plaintiffs, requiring Texas Secretary of State to disclose records of registered voters suspected of being noncitizens, and remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.
    • The Court held that the plaintiffs had shown no particularized, concrete injury from the information deficit caused by the refusal to disclose the requested records.
    • Judge Ho concurred, opining that, while there is now a burden on plaintiffs to show a particularized informational injury, it should not be a high burden to overcome.

Unpublished

  • Medina-Rodriguez v. Garland, 20-60334, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Duncan, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ’s denial of his and his family’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Ortiz, 21-50947, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming conviction of transporting illegal aliens.
  • U.S. v. Stevens, 21-51048, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ingram, 21-51120, c/w 21-51164, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Granados-Dominguez, 21-51216, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Higginson, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 57-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Gutierrez, 21-51227, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Etheridge, 22-10148, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez-Zarraga, 22-10392, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Dennis, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Villarreal-Medrano, 22-40038, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mendoza-Espinoza, 22-50079, c/w 22-50080, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Villasana-Hernandez, 22-50133, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Dennis, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Moncada-Aguirre, 22-50388, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Romero-Carreon, 22-50657, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal, pretrial detention
    • Affirming order of pretrial detention.
  • Cosme-Ramos v. Garland, 22-60093, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Elrod, Haynes), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from IJ order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Orellana, 22-60162, c/w 22-60163, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming finding of violation of terms of supervised release and revocation of supervised release.