July 15, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • In re Media Matters for America, 25-10630, petition for mandamus to N.D. Tex.
    • Graves, J. (Clement, Graves, Willett), venue
    • Granting in part petition for writ of mandamus, vacating order denying transfer of venue, and remanding for district court to conduct appropriate venue analysis.
    • The case stems from a November 2023 article by Media Matters criticizing X Corp. (formerly Twitter) for placing major brand ads alongside offensive content, prompting advertisers to pull their business. X sued Media Matters in Texas, alleging various state law claims, and Media Matters responded with motions to dismiss and later sought a venue transfer to the Northern District of California. The district court denied that request, citing delay and “gamesmanship.”
    • The Fifth Circuit reviewed the mandamus petition under the three required factors. First, the court reaffirmed that mandamus is the only adequate remedy in a venue dispute because the harm from litigating in an improper forum cannot be remedied after a final judgment. Second, the court found that the issues raised had broader legal significance beyond this case and that mandamus was appropriate to ensure consistency in venue transfer jurisprudence. Third, the court held that Media Matters had a clear and indisputable right to a venue analysis under § 1404(a) that considers the eight public- and private-interest factors. The district court erred by denying transfer solely on timeliness grounds without evaluating these mandatory factors. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that while timeliness is a consideration, it cannot be the sole basis for denial. The panel declined to rule on whether Media Matters’ conduct warranted sanctions or whether it had forfeited its reliance on the forum-selection clause. The court held in abeyance Media Matters’ pending interlocutory appeal while the district court conducts the remanded venue analysis.
  • Jackson v. City of Houston, 23=20574, c/w 24-20047, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Graves, Engelhardt, Oldham), municipal liability, standing, governmental immunity, appellate jurisdiction
    • Reversing district court’s order that plaintiffs had standing to assert equal protection claims arising from deaths of bystanders from police pursuits through predominantly Black communities; vacating order that governmental immunity did not shield city from negligence claim; dismissing appeal of other orders without prejudice; and remanding for further proceedings.
    • Three Black men—Michael Jackson, Carl Wiley, Jr., and Rashad Henderson—were killed in separate high-speed chases involving the Houston Police Department (HPD). Wiley and Henderson were struck by fleeing suspects, while Jackson was hit by an HPD officer. The families of the decedents sued the City of Houston, alleging that HPD maintains a policy of racial profiling that results in disproportionately high numbers of police chases in predominantly Black neighborhoods, which they contend led to the deaths. They brought federal claims under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and substantive due process, along with state law claims. The district court dismissed all but the equal protection and Jackson’s negligence claims, and Houston appealed.
    • On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s partial denial of Houston’s motions to dismiss. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), jurisdiction exists only for certified orders that involve a controlling question of law whose resolution would materially advance the litigation. The court determined it could review only the issue of whether Plaintiffs had standing to bring equal protection claims—not the Title VI claims, which were already dismissed for failure to state a claim. Applying the standard for Article III standing, the court found the plaintiffs’ alleged injury—a disproportionate number of police chases in Black neighborhoods—was a generalized grievance and not a personal denial of equal treatment, which is necessary for an equal protection claim.
    • Because the plaintiffs did not allege that the decedents were treated differently than similarly situated individuals of another race, the court concluded they lacked standing to bring equal protection claims. Their deaths, while tragic, were not legally attributable to a denial of equal protection but to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. With no remaining federal claims, the Fifth Circuit also vacated the district court’s denial of governmental immunity on Jackson’s state negligence claim and remanded for the lower court to reassess its jurisdiction over that claim.
  • Seville Industries, L.L.C. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, 24-30170, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Oldham, J. (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), CARES Act, administrative law
    • Affirming district court’s judgment that the CARES Act’s definition of “payroll costs” does not include payments to independent contractors, such that plaintiff’s failed on their challenge to the SBA’s decision to not forgive the entirety of the Paycheck Protection Program loan to plaintiff.
    • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the SBA’s decision, holding that the CARES Act does not allow businesses to count contractor payments toward payroll costs for the purposes of loan forgiveness. Under the statute, independent contractors were allowed to apply for their own PPP loans, but their compensation could not be claimed by another business in its payroll cost calculation. The court emphasized that “payroll costs” are defined differently for employers and independent contractors, and businesses cannot claim both.
    • The court thoroughly reviewed the statutory text and structure of the CARES Act. It found that the statute clearly distinguishes between payroll costs for businesses—defined as compensation to employees—and for independent contractors—defined as their own income. Seville’s reading of the statute would permit “double dipping,” allowing both businesses and contractors to count the same compensation toward separate loans. Such an interpretation was inconsistent with the statutory language, which defines “payroll costs” separately for the two types of applicants, and would lead to absurd results, such as granting forgiveness for funds never used to retain contractors.
    • The court also rejected Seville’s argument that the SBA’s interim final rule changed the statutory meaning of payroll costs. Instead, the rule merely clarified the agency’s consistent interpretation, and did not retroactively apply new standards. The court likewise dismissed Seville’s equitable estoppel claim, holding that even if such a claim could run against the government, Seville failed to show any affirmative misconduct or substantial injury. The SBA had clearly instructed applicants that payments to independent contractors were not to be included in payroll costs, and Seville had certified it understood the loan would be forgiven only for documented employee payroll.
    • Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Seville had overborrowed by including payments to independent contractors and was not entitled to full loan forgiveness. Congress intended the PPP to help businesses keep employees on payroll and to offer independent contractors relief through their own loan eligibility. The statutory design, read in context and with attention to its anti-duplication safeguards, supported the SBA’s decision to deny forgiveness for funds Seville improperly based on non-payroll expenses. The court affirmed summary judgment for the SBA.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Fraser, 24-10781, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Murillo, 24-10967, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Enhelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 24-11084, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Dabit, 24-30496, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of wire fraud.
  • Ometu v. City of San Antonio, 24-50152, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), municipal liability, qualified immunity
    • Affirming dismissal of municipal liability claims, and qualified immunity dismissal of claims against arresting officers.
  • U.S. v. Nash, 24-50744, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Maldonado-Aleman, 23-50858, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Oldham, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 324-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • Spann v. Fedex Freight, Inc., 24-60318, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Guidry, J. (Elrod, Engelhardt, Guidry, by designation), employment discrimination
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of employment discrimination claims.