July 28-29, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Institute for Free Speech v. Johnson, 24-50712, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Engelhardt, Guidry, by designation), First Amendment, standing, qualified immunity
    • Reversing dismissal of plaintiff’s First Amendment pre-enforcement challenge to Texas Election Code for lack of standing; affirming dismissal of claims against defendants in individual capacities as barred by qualified immunity; and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), a nonprofit dedicated to defending First Amendment rights, sought to provide pro bono legal representation to two prospective clients—Chris Woolsey and the Texas Anti-Communist League—in challenging a Texas law requiring political advertisements to carry a government-prescribed notice. However, IFS refrained from offering legal aid out of concern that doing so would constitute a prohibited “political contribution” under Section 253.094 of the Texas Election Code, which forbids corporations from contributing goods or services to political campaigns. IFS requested an advisory opinion from the Texas Ethics Commission, which responded that such pro bono services would be an in-kind contribution, subject to the Code’s restrictions.
    • After the Commission adopted this interpretation in a formal advisory opinion, IFS filed suit against the eight commissioners and executive director, challenging both the statute and the advisory opinion as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. IFS sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages against some defendants in their individual and official capacities. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing and ripeness, and alternatively held that qualified immunity barred the individual-capacity claims. IFS appealed, arguing that it had standing, its claims were ripe, and qualified immunity should not shield the individual defendants.
    • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that IFS had Article III standing based on a credible pre-enforcement injury. The court found that IFS demonstrated a serious intent to engage in constitutionally protected conduct—offering pro bono legal services—which was arguably proscribed by Texas law. The court noted that IFS had identified specific clients, taken concrete steps toward representation, and had previously provided similar legal services elsewhere. Because IFS refrained from acting due to fear of enforcement and the Commission had not disavowed enforcement, the court found the threat of prosecution substantial.
    • The court also determined that IFS’s injury was both traceable to the challenged statute and redressable by a favorable ruling, thereby meeting the remaining standing requirements. The Commissioners’ argument that federal tax law independently barred IFS’s actions failed, as there was no clear authority suggesting that the Internal Revenue Code prohibits such pro bono representation. The court further held that IFS’s claims were ripe, emphasizing that Woolsey and the League already met the legal definitions of a “candidate” and “political committee” under Texas law, and that it was not necessary to wait for enforcement proceedings to begin.
    • Finally, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on immunity. The court upheld the application of the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity, allowing IFS’s official-capacity claims to proceed. However, it affirmed the dismissal of individual-capacity claims under qualified immunity, holding that it was not “clearly established” that nonprofit legal representation constituted protected First Amendment activity in the face of political contribution bans. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for further proceedings on the official-capacity claims but barred claims against the officials in their personal capacities.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v Pazos-Montes, 25-10198, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Stancu v. HRI Lodging/Hilton Garden Inn, 25-10242, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, First Amendment
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s ADA, ADEA, and First Amendment claims against former employer.
  • U.S. v. Taylor, 24-10952, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Anderson, 24-10976, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Mitchell, 24-20370, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Oldham), criminal, guilty plea
    • Dismissing appeal of sentence after guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, pursuant to appeal waiver in plea agreement.
  • Lyons v. Sade, 24-20479, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Oldham), service of process
    • Affirming dismissal of suit for failure to timely serve process on defendants.
  • Marbury v. United National Insurance Co., 24-30599, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Higginson, J. (Higginson, Ho, Wilson), Wilson, J., concurring; insurance
    • Vacating judgment in favor of insurer that plaintiff had no insurable interest in the property at issue, and remanding for further proceedings, holding that district court “erroneously discounted” the plaintiff’s deposition testimony on a disputed material fact.
    • Judge Wilson concurred, and would reach the same result without reaching the question of the district court’s treatment of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony.
  • U.S. v. Moreno, 25-40042, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. King, 24-40832, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • Escobedo v. Orellana, 25-50124, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Clement, Wilson), civil
    • Affirming judgment in favor of defendants, with no description of claims or of issues on appeal.
  • U.S. v. Pinedo-Nerio, 24-50798, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Ho, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Delgado, 24-50893, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginson, Oldham, Douglas), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Villeda-Martinez, 24-51014, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence upon conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Padilla-Rostran v. Bondi, 25-60018, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Nicaraguan citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of, inter alia, asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Barnett v. American Express National Bank, 24-60391, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), arbitration
    • Reversing district court’s denial of credit card company’s motion to compel arbitration of cardholder’s FCRA claims.