February 9, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • One Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30758, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Ho, Oldham) (oral argument at panel stage), Ho, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc; insurance, arbitration, en banc
    • Denying rehearing en banc of panel decision affirming denial of insurers’ motion to compel arbitration as “La. R.S. 22:868 expressly prohibits arbitration agreements for insurance contracts covering property located in the state.”
    • Judge Ho concurred in the denial of rehearing. “The court is right to deny rehearing en banc and thus leave intact our unpublished panel decision in One Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 2026 WL 50022 (5th Cir.). After all, as counsel acknowledges, our panel decision in One Lakeside faithfully applied our controlling precedent in Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 161 F.4th 282 (5th Cir. 2025). In Town of Vinton, we rejected the same arguments, made by the same group of insurance defendants and counsel, as in One Lakeside. And as counsel further acknowledges, we denied their rehearing en banc petition in Town of Vinton last month, without a single dissenting vote. So why file another petition for rehearing en banc in One Lakeside? Counsel claims that it was necessary ‘to exhaust their remedies,’ citing 5th Cir. I.O.P. 35.1. But that’s plainly wrong. The provision cited by counsel (recently renumbered 5th Cir. I.O.P. 40.1) says precisely the opposite of what counsel claims. As that provision has long made clear, it is ‘not necessary’ to seek rehearing ‘as a prerequisite’ to seeking cert. To the contrary, rehearing en banc is an ‘extraordinary procedure’—indeed, it’s ‘the most abused prerogative of appellate advocates in the Fifth Circuit.'”
  • Aries Marine Corp. v. United Fire & Safety, L.L.C., 25-30010, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Graves, J. (Dennis, Graves, Duncan) (oral argument), maritime law
    • Affirming denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion that contract was maritime in nature and that Louisiana’s limitation of indemnity should not apply.
    • In this appeal arising from an offshore liftboat accident off the Louisiana coast, Aries Marine Corporation sought indemnity from United Fire & Safety, LLC under cross-indemnification provisions in a master services contract between United Fire and Fieldwood Energy, the offshore platform operator. After the liftboat listed and capsized, United Fire’s employee was injured and brought claims in the limitation of liability proceeding. Aries argued that United Fire was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify it; the district court disagreed, concluding the master services contract was non-maritime and therefore governed by Louisiana state law, which (under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act) voided the indemnity provisions.
    • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit conducted a de novo review and agreed with the district court. The panel applied the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the court’s two-part test for maritime contracts: whether the contract involved services to facilitate offshore oil and gas work and whether the parties expected a vessel to play a substantial role in performing the contract. Although the contract involved offshore platform work, the court found that United Fire did not reasonably expect a vessel to play a substantial role in performing its “fire watch” services. Because the contract was not maritime in nature, federal maritime law did not displace Louisiana law, and the Louisiana statute voided the indemnity provisions.
  • AbbVie, Inc. v. Murrill, 24-30645, c/w AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v. Murrill, 24-30651, c/w Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Murrill, 24-30673, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Willett, J. (Higginson, Willett, Engelhardt) (oral argument), preemption, Medicaid, takings, intervention
    • Affirming summary judgment for Louisiana on challenge to pharmacy pricing regulation statute, and reversing grant of intervention in one of the consolidated cases.
    • The appeals arose from consolidated challenges by drug manufacturers and a pharmaceutical trade association to Louisiana’s Act 358, a state law intended to protect access to discounted medicines under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program. Section 340B requires certain drug manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at reduced prices to “covered entities” that serve low-income patients. Over time, many covered entities partnered with independent “contract pharmacies” to dispense these drugs, prompting some manufacturers to adopt restrictive policies limiting such arrangements. Louisiana adopted Act 358 to prohibit manufacturers from interfering with covered entities’ use of contract pharmacies. The plaintiffs—manufacturers and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)—filed suit alleging federal preemption and various constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the State and allowed the Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) to intervene.
    • The Fifth Circuit first addressed whether Act 358 is preempted by federal law. Applying the presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation—such as public health and consumer protection—the court held that Act 358 regulates the post-sale distribution of drugs and the role of pharmacies, not the federal 340B pricing program itself. Because Section 340B “is silent about the distribution of drugs to patients and the role of pharmacies,” and because the Fifth Circuit had recently upheld a materially similar Mississippi law against preemption, the court concluded that Act 358 is not field, conflict, or obstacle preempted. The court rejected arguments that the law impermissibly expanded the universe of covered entities or conflicted with the federal enforcement scheme, noting state and federal enforcement operate in distinct spheres.
    • Having upheld Act 358 against preemption, the court turned to the manufacturers’ constitutional challenges. AbbVie argued the statute effected a taking under the Fifth Amendment; the Fifth Circuit, relying on its earlier decision in AbbVie v. Fitch, rejected this claim. The court held that Act 358 imposes a negative obligation of non-interference rather than a physical taking or a regulatory taking requiring compensation. Similarly, AstraZeneca’s Contracts Clause challenge—which asserted that Act 358 impaired contractual relationships—was evaluated under established two-step doctrine. The court found that States retain leeway to regulate contractual relationships in furtherance of public purposes like ensuring access to medicines, and that Act 358 did not substantially impair contract obligations.
    • PhRMA’s argument that Act 358 was unconstitutionally vague was also rejected. The court found the statute provided sufficiently clear standards for regulated parties, particularly given the context of the long-standing 340B program and related regulatory guidance.
    • Finally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in permitting the LPCA to intervene because the association failed to demonstrate any defense distinct from the State’s and did not show divergent interests that would affect the litigation.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Ortiz, 25-10717, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Benitez-Garcia, 25-10817, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Romero, 25-10847, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lucero, 24-11103, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Williams v. Bisignano, 25-30258, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Willett, Ho) (no oral argument), social security
    • Affirming denial of disability benefits.
  • Canfield v. Collier, 25-40165, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas inmate’s challenge to state policy change regarding custodial reclassification.
  • U.S. v. Castelon-Vences, 25-40453, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Sifuentes, 25-50408, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Richman, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Burford v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 25-60401, petition for review of SEC order
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), Securities and Exchange Commission
    • Denying petition for review of SEC order sustaining FINRA finding of violation of FINRA rule 2010.