February 11, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • M.D. v. Abbott, 24-40248, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (voting against rehearing: Jones, Smith, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Wilson, JJ.; voting for rehearing: Stewart, Graves, Higginson, Douglas, Ramirez, JJ.; Elrod, Ho, Oldham, JJ., not participating in poll); Higginson, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing (joined by Stewart, Graves, Douglas, JJ.); sovereign immunity, contempt
    • Denying rehearing en banc of panel opinion that vacated contempt order against state of Texas regarding compliance with court order of permanent injunctive relief to overhaul Texas’s foster care system, which carried $100,000 daily fine, which held that the state was in substantial compliance, that the contempt fines violated Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and removing district court judge from the case.
    • Judge Higginson opined, “It cannot be deduced that relief is ‘retroactive’ merely because it is predicated on events in the past. The district court attempted to coerce future compliance by imposing sanctions informed by HHSC’s ongoing contempt for its decree. The reasoning for the court’s decision should not be conflated with the effect of its judgment. A contempt sanction is not retrospective in effect simply because the court considers—as it must any time contempt is in issue—a party’s past failures to comply with the decree. Neither can it be maintained that the district court ordered ‘retroactive monetary relief’ solely because fines are monetary. That would be incorrect as a matter of first principles, and it is directly contradicted by Supreme Court precedent. Even when monetary exactions in aid of an injunction are ‘compensatory in nature,’ that does not change the fact that the underlying relief operates prospectively as permitted by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, it is completely consistent with the Eleventh Amendment for federal courts to assess fines against state officials in civil or even criminal contempt proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • U.S. v. Kidd, 23-11265, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on resentencing that had been delayed sixteen years, during which time the defendant had been serving unrelated state sentences.
  • Senechal v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co., 24-20179, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Davis, Higginson, Douglas), insurance
    • Affirming in part and vacating in part summary judgment in favor of insurer on extracontractual claims, and remanding for further proceedings.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Brown, 24-10553, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Ho, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Knowles, 24-10706, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Ho, Oldham), criminal
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Porterie, 22-30457, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Haynes, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming ACCA-enhanced sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Toney, 24-30594, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  • U.S. v. Lopez, 24-40164, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Joseph v. Director of Texas Service Center, 24-40249, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Engelhardt, Oldham), immigration
    • Affirming denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion challenging the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services’ denial of his application for EB-1 permanent residence.
  • U.S. v. Dobek, 24-50234, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Miranda, 21-51156, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Oldham), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, upholding defendant’s waiver of conflict-free counsel as knowing and voluntary.