Evaluating the Lawsuit Attacking Mississippi’s Distinctive Method of Picking Governors: Part Three in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns on a legal challenge to Mississippi’s method of selecting governors, Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone discuss the merits of the challenge, with a particular focus on the plaintiffs’ contention that the method violates the one-person, one-vote principle enshrined in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amar and Mazzone discuss the relevant precedents and argue that based on those precedents, the challenge has solid legal ground on which to proceed.

Read More

Henry v. Educational Financial Service

Docket: 18-20809

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Bankruptcy

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its previously filed opinion and substituted the following opinion. The court held that its holding in In re Nat'l Gypsum Co., 118 F.3d 1059, 1069 (5th Cir. 1997), that bankruptcy courts have discretion to refuse to compel arbitration in proceedings seeking enforcement of a discharge injunction, remains good law following the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Sys., 138 S. Ct. at 1623-24. In this case, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of Wells Fargo's motion to compel arbitration of a dispute over whether debtor's discharge applied to a student loan.

Doe v. Abbott

Docket: 18-11620

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Per Curiam

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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellants' challenges to the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program. The Program is codified in Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that procedural due process challenges to Chapter 62 failed because conviction of a sex offense entails all requisite process for the state to impose sex-offender conditions. The court also held that ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy challenges do not cross the minimum pleading threshold because Chapter 62 is nonpunitive. In this case, appellants claims to the contrary were unpersuasive.

Doe v. Mckesson

Docket: 17-30864

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion. After Officer John Doe was injured during a public protest, he filed suit against Black Lives Matter, the group associated with the protest and Defendant Mckesson, one of the leaders and organizers of the group. Determining that it had jurisdiction to hear this case, the court held that Officer Doe failed to adequately allege that Mckesson was vicariously liable for the conduct of the unknown assailant or that Mckesson entered into a civil conspiracy with the purpose of injuring Officer Doe. However, the court found that Officer Doe adequately alleged that Mckesson was liable in negligence for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration to illegally occupy a highway, and that the district court erred in dismissing the suit on First Amendment grounds. The court also held that the district court erred by taking judicial notice of the legal status of Black Lives Matter, but nonetheless found that Officer Doe did not plead facts that would allow the court to conclude that Black Lives Matter was an entity capable of being sued. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Mazkouri

Docket: 18-20650

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Oldham

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his role in a massive conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. The court held that defendant's claim that the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 when it admitted into evidence certain summary charts was meritless under any standard of review; there was no error in admitting evidence of the criminal convictions of two of his co-conspirators for legitimate purposes, and any error in admitting evidence of the criminal convictions of three other co-conspirators was harmless; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the deliberate ignorance instruction. The court also rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's calculation of his recommended sentence under the sentencing guidelines, and upheld the district court's finding of the loss amount, that his fraud involved ten or more victims, and that his case involved a large number of vulnerable victims. Finally, the court upheld the district court's calculations of restitution and held that the district court did not clearly err in its forfeiture calculation.

United States v. Jackson

Docket: 19-20346

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The abuse of discretion standard of review generally applies to rulings on motions to resentence under the First Step Act, because the Act gives the district court broad discretion in deciding whether to resentence. The Fifth Circuit held that, to the extent the district court's determination turns on "the meaning of a federal statute" such as the Act, the court's review is de novo. The court affirmed the district court's explanation, on limited remand, that it exercised its discretion not to resentence. In this case, the court held that although defendant was eligible for resentencing under the Act because he had a covered offense, the district court had broad discretion not to resentence him. The district court noted that defendant's life sentence still would have fallen within the appropriate statutory range were the Act applied, and it relied on his extensive criminal history and central role in the offense.

Ryder v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Docket: 18-30824

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Transportation Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific in an action alleging that the company negligently contributed to a fatal railroad collision. In this case, the trucks in front of a caravan had left insufficient room for the last truck to clear the Oil & Gas Crossing. The last truck stopped on the tracks where, seconds later, a Union Pacific train collided with it, killing all three individuals inside. The court found plaintiffs' claim that Union Pacific breached a duty to provide adequate visual warning devices at the Oil & Gas Crossing unpersuasive; the Crossing was not a "dangerous trap;" and, although a jury could reasonably conclude that Union Pacific had a duty to plaintiffs to protect against the unique hazard presented by the Crossing, plaintiffs have failed to show why the signs Union Pacific installed were insufficient to fulfill this duty. The court also held that plaintiffs' claims that Union Pacific was negligent in operating the locomotive horn was either preempted by federal law or otherwise unsupported by sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.