July 18, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Hopkins v. Watson, 19-60662, c/w 19-60678, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Jones, J. (joined by Richman, C.J., and Smith, Elrod, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, JJ., with Haynes and Ramirez, JJ., concurring in judgment only); Dennis, J., dissenting (joined by King, Stewart, Graves, Higginson, Douglas, JJ.); voting rights, Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection, standing, sovereign immunity
    • On en banc rehearing of Aug. 4, 2023, panel opinion (Dennis, J. – author; King, J.; Jones, J. – dissenting) that reversed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff class’s Eighth Amendment challenge to Mississippi constitution’s permanent disenfranchisement of certain felons, the Court instead affirmed the dismissal of the challenge: “Do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens that the law should change. The paramount lesson of the Constitution and Richardson is that the changes sought by Plaintiffs here can and must be achieved through public consensus effectuated in the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.”
    • The Court held that § 2 of the 14th Amendment trumped the 8th Amendment: “Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment is less familiar but more specific. It reduces the number of representatives in Congress to which a State is entitled if that State disenfranchises any of its male, non-Indian citizens over the age of 21. But there is a single exception: States may not be penalized for disenfranchising a citizen ‘for participation in rebellion, or other crime.’ U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 2 (emphasis added). The carve-out reflects a long tradition in this country, and before that, in British law, and before that, in the Western world. This tradition can be summed up in Lockean terms: if a person breaks the laws, he has forfeited the right to participate in making them. * * * [E]ven if this court were to find a conflict between the Eighth Amendment and Section Two of the Fourteenth, the established canons of interpretation dictate that Section Two should be given effect. It is both more specific and later in time than the Eighth Amendment.”
    • The Court further held that disenfranchisement is not a punishment, much less a cruel or unusual one. The Court observed that the challengers’ argument “initially requires equating ‘punishment’ as used in the Readmission Act with ‘punishment’ in the Mississippi Constitution, and then requires equating ‘punishment’ in both one hundred fifty-year old enactments with the Supreme Court’s late-twentieth century adoption of the ‘evolving standards of decency’ test for punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Timing is everything. Plaintiffs’ argument, echoed by the dissent, fails without a conclusion that ‘punishment’ meant the same thing in 1870 as Eighth Amendment ‘punishment’ has evolved to mean in recent decades.” (Internal citation omitted).
    • Judge Dennis dissented. “[T]he majority largely conflates the Plaintiffs’ challenge to the punishment at issue in this case—permanent disenfranchisement of free persons who have completed all terms of their sentences—with a challenge to felon disenfranchisement in general. Where the majority does reach the issue before us, it picks and chooses among precedents, ignoring well-established Eighth Amendment principles, while stretching the Supreme Court’s Equal Protection decision in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), beyond all recognition. What is even worse, the majority finds the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments mutually exclusive, flouting Supreme Court precedent that ‘provisions [granting] Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas . . . are always subject to the limitation that they must not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.'” (Internal citation omitted).
  • Utah v. Su, 23-11097, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Willett, J. (Haynes, Willett, Oldham), Haynes, J., concurring in judgment only; ERISA
    • Vacating district court’s upholding of Department of Labor’s regulation regarding ERISA plan fiduciaries’ duties, which had relied on Chevron deference, and remanding for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024).

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Martinez-Ramirez, 23-20438, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Barrios-De Leon, 23-40707, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Springs-Hutchinson v. City of Austin, 23-50471, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), qualified immunity
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims arising from death of their son after he was in a shootout with police.
  • U.S. v. Henton, 23-50808, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Crabtree v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 23-60537, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Wiener, Douglas), champerty
    • Certifying to the Mississippi Supreme Court the question of whether Mississippi’s champerty statute voids an assignment of a cause of action to a disinterested third party: “Does Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-11 (Rev. 2013) allow a creditor in bankruptcy to engage a disinterested third party to purchase a cause of action from a debtor?”
  • Seid v. Garland, 23-60547, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Oldham), immigration
    • Denying Syrian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Johnston, 24-30150, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ugarte, 24-50080, c/w 24-50081, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Southwick, Higginson), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of illegal reentry.