Latest 4 Cases: Bonin v. Sabine River Authority of Louisiana (Civil Procedure), Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott (Civil Rights), United States v. ...

The Response to President Trump’s Shameless Religious Photo Op Gives Me Hope for the Future

MARCI A. HAMILTON

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton praises the response of liberal clergy in response to President Trump’s seemingly opportunistic photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Hamilton calls upon these religious leaders to continue speaking out loudly in the name of inclusion, love, and truth.

Read More

Bonin v. Sabine River Authority of Louisiana

Docket: 19-40299

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Real Estate & Property Law

The Sabine River meanders between Texas and Louisiana. Two state agencies jointly regulate its waterways and operate a hydroelectric plant--the Toledo Bend Reservoir and Toledo Bend Dam. In March 2016, heavy rains led to heavy water inflow into the reservoir and flooding of the River. The plaintiffs, about 300 Texas and Louisiana property owners, alleged that the flooding of their property was caused or exacerbated by the reservoir’s water level becoming too high and the spillway gates at the reservoir being intentionally opened. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which remanded back to Texas state court. The cases were removed again. The Texas federal district court denied a motion to remand but later dismissed all claims against private power companies and remanded the claims against the state authorities to state court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Federal jurisdiction obtained at the time of removal because the suit then qualified as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11)(A); an exception for a local single event does not apply. CAFA mass actions “may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” The court upheld the dismissals of the power companies based on findings that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege any violations of the FERC license; that under Texas law, only state authorities may be found liable for floodwater damage; and that the plaintiffs failed to show that the operation of the generators was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ losses.

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott

Docket: 20-50407

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law

During the Coronavirus pandemic, Texas Governor Abbott postponed the May 2020 primary runoff elections to July 14; doubled the period for early voting by personal appearance; and declared that election officials would issue further guidance on social distancing and other precautions. The Democratic Party sought injunctive and declaratory relief that those eligible to vote by mail include all “eligible voter[s], regardless of age and physical condition . . . if they believe they should practice social distancing in order to hinder the known or unknown spread of a virus or disease.” The state trial court granted a preliminary injunction; an interlocutory appeal stayed the injunction. Texas Attorney General Paxton issued a statement, indicating that fear of contracting the Virus unaccompanied by a qualifying sickness or physical condition does not constitute a disability under the Texas Election Code for purposes of receiving a ballot by mail. The plaintiffs filed federal claims that Texas’s rules for voting by mail discriminate by age, restrict political speech, are unconstitutionally vague, and that Paxton’s open letter was a threat constituting voter intimidation. The Fifth Circuit denied relief, referring to the district court’s “audacity” in entering a sweeping preliminary injunction, weeks before the election, that requires officials to distribute mail-in ballots to any eligible voter who wants one. The Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to politically accountable state officials The spread of the Virus has not given unelected federal judges a roving commission to rewrite state election code.

United States v. Calzada Vega

Docket: 16-41663

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation. Both parties agree that the merit's of defendant's appeal are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019). At issue is whether defendant's release from custody mooted his challenge to the presentencing report's calculation of his sentencing guidelines. The court applied United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006), and held that defendant's appeal of the eight-level sentence enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) is not moot because he remains subject to a term of supervised release.

United States v. Guidry

Docket: 19-30347

Opinion Date: June 4, 2020

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court held that the district court did not err by applying two-level enhancements to defendant's offense level under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice and USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense. The court also held that the district court did not err by adding three criminal history points for defendant's prior drug offense, rejecting his claims under USSG 4A1.2(k)(1) and the rule of lenity.