The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

Appellate

Judge Higginbotham Drills Down on ‘Impermissible Gloss’ of Court’s ‘Moment of Threat Doctrine’ in Qualified Immunity Case

Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham authored the panel opinion and a concurrence, saying the court was bound to follow its own precedent in this case while also calling on the Fifth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court to “revisit the doctrine” that is “deployed daily across this country” in police shooting cases. The case involves the shooting death of Ashtian Barnes, who was stopped for having outstanding toll violations — a non-arrestable offense — and was killed by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. when he attempted to drive away.

Fifth Circuit: Police Immune for Arresting Journalist Just for Asking Questions

Laredo officials who arrested a citizen-journalist in 2017 for asking for information deemed nonpublic cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment rights of the reporter because the officers have qualified immunity because they believed they were following a Texas law — even though the law had never been successfully used in a prosecution and has been declared unconstitutional, a hotly divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled late Tuesday. The en banc court of the Fifth Circuit ruled 9-7 that police and prosecutors should not be required to know whether a state law is constitutional or not when enforcing laws.

But seven Fifth Circuit judges in four different dissents blasted the majority’s decision because it turns routine questioning by news reporters into probable cause for committing criminal activity and shows how screwed up the Fifth Circuit is when it comes to granting immunity to government officials who abuse their power.

(Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article states that the en banc vote was 10-7 instead of 9-7. The Lawbook regrets the error.)

Takings Fight Between Texas, Landowners Now in SCOTUS’ Hands

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case where a group of about 75 Texas landowners are fighting to revive their lawsuit against the state seeking compensation for the repeated flooding of their property that they say is the result of a public highway project. The case came to the high court after a Fifth Circuit panel sided with the state and the court declined to rehear the case en banc over the dissent of five judges. The question the justices are tasked with answering in this case is:
“May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?”

Fifth Circuit Hands Book Stores, Haynes Boone’s Laura Prather Victory in Book Rating Law Case

The decision is a high-profile win for Prather, who represents several bookstores and publishers who challenged the law. The case was Prather’s first appearance before the New Orleans-based appeals court.

The Texas Lawbook profiled Prather, who leads Haynes Boone’s media law practice group, in an in-depth article last week. In the article, Prather discussed the bookstore law case and other First Amendment matters that she is championing.

SCOTX Rejects Justice’s Request to Remove Opponent, Justice Devine, From Ballot

The Texas Supreme Court appeared displeased with the timing of Second Court of Appeals Justice Brian Walker’s challenge to his opponent’s ability to appear on the March primary ballot. Justice Walker is running against incumbent Justice John Devine. In a ruling issued Thursday, the Texas Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that even if Justice Walker promptly brought his challenge, the law requires Justice Devine be given an opportunity to cure any deficiencies in his application. “A timely challenge would advance rather than impede ballot access because it would alert all parties to any deficiencies and enable a candidate to correct them if he could,” the court wrote. “But when a party slumbers on his rights — or, indeed, does not slumber but carefully lies in wait — these principles are not advanced but impaired.”

Texas Supreme Court Hears UT Regents’ $51M Royalty Dispute

For 13 years, the University of Texas Board of Regents and IDEXX Laboratories seemed pleased with a royalty deal they inked for certain diagnostic tests used by veterinarians. Then an auditor told UT IDEXX had been underpaying what it owed under the structure of the deal. That finding led to litigation and a $51 million award for UT that was later undone by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston. The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether the contract binding the parties is ambiguous.

SCOTX to Decide if Class Action Suit May Proceed Against USAA

The owner of a restored vintage Mercedes that was declared salvage by USAA, a decision the company later walked back, argues the insurance giant participates in a wrongful practice of prematurely reporting to the state that it has paid claims. USAA argues the plaintiff should be required to pursue her novel claims as an individual and not on a classwide basis.

Mesa Airlines Settles Racial Profiling Suit

Issam Abdallah and Abderraouf Alkhawaldeh recently reached a confidential settlement with Mesa Airlines. The two men filed suit after their flight was delayed and subsequently canceled because of what they allege was racial profiling by a flight attendant and pilot. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor had tossed the claims against Mesa on summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit revived the lawsuit in October.

© Copyright 2024 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.