Note: Included cases are from August 1, 2024, through August 31, 2024.
Civil Rights: Wade v. City of Houston, 110 F.4th 797 (5th Cir. 2024). The plaintiffs in this case were arrested during the George Floyd protests in Houston. They sued the city and its former police chief, Art Acevedo, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They claimed they were falsely arrested after being “kettled” by police. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and the other defendants, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing roadways in potential violation of the Texas Penal Code. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the participants for obstructing a roadway or sidewalk under Texas law. Because the officers had probable cause, the court held that the arrests did not violate the participants’ First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Without an underlying constitutional violation, the claims of municipal and supervisory liability against the city and Acevedo also failed. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, ruling that the police had probable cause for the arrests; thus, there was no constitutional violation.
Voting Rights Act: Petteway v. Galveston Cnty., 111 F.4th 596, 599 (5th Cir. 2024). African American and Latino voters, advocacy organizations, and the United States sued Galveston County, Texas, challenging its 2021 redistricting plan, which eliminated the county’s sole majority-minority precinct. Plaintiffs claimed the plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, by diluting minority voting power. The district court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor under the VRA and existing Fifth Circuit precedent. The county appealed, and the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed but then granted a rehearing en banc.
The question in front of the court was whether distinct racial or language minority groups, African Americans and Latinos in this case, could aggregate their populations to claim vote dilution under Section 2 of the VRA. The Fifth Circuit overruled prior opinions to hold that the distinct groups cannot aggregate their populations. Relying on the language of the VRA and Supreme Court precedent, the Fifth Circuit ultimately held that Section 2 of the VRA does not permit minority coalition claims.
Civil Rights: Rhone v. City of Texas City, No. 22-40551, 2024 WL 3664535 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024). Thomas E. Rhone, owner of three apartment buildings, appealed a municipal court’s nuisance abatement order. Rhone brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inverse condemnation, denial of procedural due process, and unconstitutional seizure, and the City of Texas City removed the case to federal court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, and Rhone appealed. During the appeal, the Fifth Circuit ordered a limited remand to investigate the city attorney’s role in finalizing the municipal court’s abatement order and its effect on the municipal court judge’s independence. After conducting the hearing, the district court found that the city attorney’s role was limited to drafting the order and that the municipal judge did not require the city attorney’s approval to enter it. The phrase “approved as to form, substance, and entry” under the city attorney’s signature was deemed a standard legal formality, not a grant of permission. Rhone argued that the district court should examine broader systemic issues regarding municipal court independence, but the district court rejected these arguments as outside the scope of the remand. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the municipal judge acted independently and that the city attorney’s involvement in drafting the abatement order was proper under Texas law.
Mootness: Arms of Hope v. City of Mansfield, No. 23-10656, 2024 WL 3872899 (5th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024). In 2023, the City of Mansfield passed two ordinances meant to address visual clutter and blight due to graffiti and poor maintenance of unattended donation boxes in the city. Arms of Hope (AOH), a charitable organization operating unattended donation boxes, filed a declaratory judgment action against the city challenging the ordinances. AOH claimed the ordinances violated its First Amendment rights by imposing overly restrictive zoning and permitting requirements. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of AOH, halting enforcement. The city appealed the injunction, and AOH cross-appealed.
After the parties filed their briefs, the city revised its ordinances in 2024, addressing most of the concerns raised in the district court’s ruling and repealing the challenged provisions. The court found that because the 2023 ordinances were no longer in effect, the preliminary injunction against those ordinances had no ongoing impact; therefore, while the underlying case remained live, the pending interlocutory appeal was moot. The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying First Amendment claim, allowing the case to proceed in district court under the updated ordinances.
Takings: Porretto v. City of Galveston Park Board of Trustees, No. 23-40035, 2024 WL 3886181 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024). Sonya Porretto, the owner of a private beach in Galveston, Texas, sued the City of Galveston, the city’s park board, and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) alleging an unconstitutional taking of her property without compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Her claims were based on flooding and sand excavation allegedly caused by public drainage projects, which damaged her property. The district court dismissed her claims for lack of standing and jurisdiction.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court in part while also vacating part of its judgment. The court agreed that Porretto lacked standing to sue the GLO and its Commissioner, because her complaint failed to establish a causal connection between their actions and her alleged injuries. However, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal of Porretto’s claims against Galveston and the park board, holding that the court had federal question jurisdiction as well as supplemental jurisdiction over Porretto’s state law claims. Those claims were remanded back to the trial court for further consideration, including whether governmental immunity applies.
Judicial Abuse of Discretion: Sims v. City of Jasper, No. 23-40369, 2024 WL 3964352 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024). Frances Sims sued the City of Jasper and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after her son, Steven Qualls, died in police custody due to a methamphetamine overdose. Sims claimed the officers were deliberately indifferent to Qualls’ serious medical needs, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the city and one officer but allowed claims against three officers to proceed. Sims moved to bifurcate liability and damages at trial, fearing that evidence of Qualls’s criminal history and personal issues would prejudice the jury. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found for the defendants.
On appeal, Sims argued that the district court’s refusal to bifurcate was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced the liability phase by allowing irrelevant, prejudicial evidence. Applying factors such as judicial convenience, expediency and economy, and the avoidance of prejudice, the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s judgment.