November 27, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Texas v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 23-50869, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Duncan, J. (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), Ramirez, J., dissenting; sovereign immunity, Administrative Procedure Act, intergovernmental immunity, Immigration and Nationality Act, trespass
    • Reversing district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, and granting injunction to enjoin Border Patrol “from damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas’s [concertina]-wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass, Texas, as indicated in Texas’s complaint, in instances where Defendants have the necessary access to both sides of Texas’s c-wire for immigration law enforcement and emergency purposes. That access must include the land side of the c-wire fence along the international border within Shelby Park.”
    • The Court held that the federal government’s sovereign immunity was waived under § 702 of the APA for purposes of Texas’s common law claims. “Texas’s lawsuit checks all of § 702’s boxes. Texas claims it has been ‘adversely affected’ by ‘agency action,’ whose definition includes an agency’s ‘destruction … of property.’ Its suit was brought as ‘an action’ in federal court; it ‘seek[s] relief other than monetary damages’; and it ‘stat[es] a claim’ that a federal agency’s officials and employees ‘acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority.’ Accordingly, § 702 directs that Texas’s suit ‘shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States.'” (Internal citations omitted). The Court also held that the final-agency-action requirement is inapplicable because Texas’s claims raise non-statutory causes of action arising completely apart from the general provisions of the APA. The Court also held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not impliedly override APA § 702’s waiver.
    • The Court next held that intergovernmental immunity did not bar Texas’s claims. “Assuming intergovernmental immunity has not been waived, Texas’s lawsuit does not violate it. That is because (1) Texas is acting as a proprietor and not a regulator; and (2) regardless, Texas’s lawsuit does not seek to control federal employees but, at most, only incidentally affects their duties.” (Footnote omitted).
    • The Court then held that § 1252(f)(1) of the INA did not jurisdictionally bar the courts from enjoining the Border Patrol from unauthorized destruction of Texas’s c-wire. “Texas does not seek to enjoin the operation of any of the provisions listed in § 1252(f)(1). It seeks an injunction only against conduct—namely, cutting or other destruction of its c-wire—unauthorized by § 1357(a)(3). Accordingly, because § 1357(a)(3) is not one of the statutes referenced in § 1252(f)(1), the injunction Texas seeks is not barred. Such an injunction would, at most, have only a collateral effect on the operation of the covered statutes (specifically, §§ 1225 and 1226).” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    • Judge Ramirez dissented, as she would find that Texas has not shown a waiver of sovereign immunity nor a likelihood of success on the merits.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Holcomb, 24-10055, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Ho, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Connell, 24-20060, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.
  • U.S. v. Shields, 23-30729, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Gibson, 24-40094, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Schorsch v. Kwarteng, 24-40133, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s ADA claims.
  • U.S. v. Thompson, 24-50045, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Villasenor-Sanchez, 24-50227, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Campos-Sanchez, 24-50249, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • Turnbull v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, 24-50260, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Ho, Oldham), § 1983, standing, supplemental jurisdiction
    • Affirming for lack of standing or supplemental jurisdiction plaintiff’s claims arising from dismissal of bar grievances.
  • Cabuya v. Garland, 23-60523, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), Dennis, J., dissenting in part; immigration
    • Granting Angolan citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, remanding for further consideration of CAT claim.
    • Judge Dennis dissented in part, as he would also remand for reconsideration of the asylum and withholding of removal claims.