Take the Fifth

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Wilson, 25-10454, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Stanford v. England Carrier Services, L.L.C., 25-10483, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Clement, Southwick, Oldham) (no oral argument), civil
  • Affirming judgment in favor of defendant, with no description of claims or appeal issues.

• Arzamendi v. Hegseth, 24-10557, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Willett, Douglas) (oral argument), Willett, J., dissenting in part; vaccine requirements, Title VII, religious freedom mootness
  • Affirming dismissal of religious-freedom-related challenges to COVID-19-related testing, masking, and distancing policies as insufficiently pled; reversing dismissal of vaccination policies as moot; and remanding for further proceedings.
  • President Biden’s Executive Order 14043 required all federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with exceptions for legally required exemptions. The Department of Defense (DOD) implemented this mandate for its civilian workforce through memoranda directing full vaccination by November 2021 and outlining exemption procedures. Religious and medical exemptions were to be requested using DD Forms 3177 and 3176, respectively, and employees—vaccinated or not—had to attest to vaccination status on DD Form 3175. Plaintiffs Amy Arzamendi, Michael Orloff, and Brooke Stadler, all DOD civilians and practicing Christians, submitted religious exemption requests citing beliefs that the COVID-19 vaccines were tainted by abortion-related testing or violated their religious duty to preserve the sanctity of the body. While their requests were pending, a nationwide injunction in Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden halted enforcement of the mandate. Stadler and Arzamendi also sought exemptions from DOD’s masking and testing protocols (“COVID-19 Guidelines”), but these were denied, and Stadler ultimately resigned after being placed on leave for noncompliance.
  • In July 2023—months after the rescission of both the vaccination mandate and COVID-19 Guidelines—the plaintiffs sued the DOD and its top officials under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Fifth Amendment, seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated employees. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim, and contending that RFRA and Bivens remedies did not extend to this context. Plaintiffs withdrew their Bivens and injunctive-relief claims but maintained their damages claims. The district court dismissed the case in full, finding the claims tied to the rescinded vaccination requirement moot and the remaining COVID-19 Guidelines claims inadequately pleaded, since plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing any genuine conflict between their religious beliefs and the testing or masking rules.
  • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the damages claims as moot. Citing Morgan v. Plano Independent School District, the panel explained that while rescission of a policy may render equitable claims moot, it does not moot claims for compensatory or nominal damages arising from past harm. Because the plaintiffs sought both equitable and monetary relief, their claims remained justiciable despite the rescission of Executive Order 14043. The Fifth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s mootness dismissal and remanded for consideration of the substantive arguments on the vaccination mandate claims in the first instance.
  • The court then affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims challenging the COVID-19 Guidelines. Although the plaintiffs alleged religious objections, they failed to plead sufficient facts to show an actual conflict between their religious beliefs and the DOD’s masking and testing requirements—a required element of a failure-to-accommodate claim. The court reasoned that generalized opposition to medical testing or belief in divine immunity was insufficiently specific to the COVID-19 protocols, and mere requests for religious exemptions, without factual linkage between belief and burden, could not establish a plausible claim. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed dismissal of the Title VII claims related to the Guidelines, while reviving the damages claims related to the now-rescinded vaccination mandate.
  • Judge Willett dissented in part, agreeing with the majority that plaintiffs’ challenges to the federal vaccination mandate are not moot and that one plaintiff, Orloff, failed to plead a sufficient religious objection under Title VII. However, Judge Willett departs from the majority regarding plaintiffs Stadler and Arzamendi, stressing that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true and determine only whether plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a religious conflict with the COVID-19 Guidelines, not whether they have proven it. Judge Willett criticizes the majority for demanding an evidentiary showing instead of applying the deferential Rule 12(b)(6) standard, under which a complaint need only contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. In the dissent’s view, Stadler and Arzamendi’s detailed descriptions of their Christian beliefs—including objections to vaccination and testing on grounds that their bodies are divinely created and should not be subjected to unwanted medical interventions—satisfy that minimal pleading burden.
  • Judge Willett faults both the district court and the majority for applying an unduly stringent standard inconsistent with precedent such as Cicalese v. University of Texas Medical Branch and Sibley, which held that courts should not require plaintiffs to provide detailed proof of discriminatory motive or belief at the pleading stage. By dismissing the claims for failing to show precisely how testing or masking conflicted with plaintiffs’ faith, the majority, according to the dissent, repeats the same analytical error—scrutinizing plausibility as if it were summary judgment. Judge Willett emphasizes that both Stadler and Arzamendi clearly alleged conflicts between their religious convictions and the Department of Defense’s COVID-19 testing protocols, which led to adverse employment consequences. Because Rule 12(b)(6) “screens the courthouse door, not seals it,” Judge Willett would reverse the dismissal of their Title VII religious-discrimination claims and remand for further proceedings.

• U.S. v. Macias-Aguilar, 24-11003, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Dillen v. QBE Insurance Corp., 25-20070, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson) (no oral argument), insurance
  • Affirming summary judgment for insurer on plaintiff’s bad faith claims brought after insurer eventually paid claim in full after burst pipes damaged insurer’s home during a 2021 winter storm.

• Ramey, L.L.P. v. Bessent, 24-20533, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson) (no oral argument), Paycheck Protection Program
  • Remanding to district court for entry of written reasons for basis of decision dismissing plaintiff’s claim arising from denial of SBA loan forgiveness under the Paycheck Protection Program.

• U.S. v. Laday, 25-30040, appeal from E.D. La.
  • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 70-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• Barnum v. Welch, 25-30110, appeal from E.D. La.
  • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), RICO, sec. 1983
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for “hate crimes against African Americans” in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and a § 1983 claim for “torture” and cruel and unusual punishment, arising from botched surgery on plaintiff’s jaw.

• U.S. v. Arellano, 25-50188, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Sandate, 25-50230, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Riley, 24-50728, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, restitution
  • Affirming conviction and restitution award for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud.

• Flores-Alfaro v. Bondi, 25-60124, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Barksdale, Oldham, Douglas) (no oral argument), immigration
  • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition to review BIA order vacating the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) granting his withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture.

• Lin v. Bondi, 25-60136, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), immigration
  • Denying Chinese citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible, denying his application for protection and relief, and ordering him removed.