Ramey v. Bessent

Opinion

Case: 24-20533 Document: 121-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED September 14, 2026

No. 24-20533 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Ramey, L.L.P., formerly known as Ramey & Schwaller, L.L.P.,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Scott Bessent, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury; Kelly Loeffler, in her Official Capacity as Administrator of the Small Business Administration; United States Small Business Administration,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-3902

______________________________

Before Richman, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Plaintiff-Appellant Ramey, L.L.P. (formerly known as Ramey & Schwaller, L.L.P) (Ramey) is a law firm based in Houston, Texas, that is owned by William P. Ramey, III. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Ramey sought and received government-backed financial assistance for his

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20533 Document: 121-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2026

No. 24-20533

law firm via a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan issued by Zions Bancorporation, N.A., d/b/a Amegy Bank (Amegy). After granting the loan, Amegy learned of a pending criminal complaint against Mr. Ramey and determined that he had falsely answered Question 5 (the Criminal History Exclusion) on his PPP loan application. Amegy Bank subsequently accelerated the PPP loan and froze the firm’s accounts. Thereafter, the Small Business Association (SBA) found Ramey ineligible for PPP loans and any subsequent forgiveness. This court upheld Amegy’s and SBA’s actions in a separate proceeding. See Ramey & Schwaller, L.L.P. v. Zions Bancorporation NA, 71 F.4th 257, 258–60 (5th Cir. 2023).

Ramey filed this suit in the Southern District of Texas in 2022. After multiple amendments, Ramey’s operative pleading sought (1) judicial review of SBA’s denial of its application for a First Draw PPP Loan, Second Draw PPP Loan, and Loan Forgiveness, and (2) monetary damages. SBA moved to dismiss in August 2024. It argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Ramey’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and that, in the alternative, Ramey had failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court orally granted SBA’s motion during a hearing, providing only limited explanation for its ruling, and Ramey timely appealed.

We ordered a limited remand to the district court to allow that court to explain its reasons for dismissal. The district court did so via a written order entered in May 2026. Ramey then filed a supplemental brief asking us to review the district court’s reasons for dismissal, and SBA responded.

Ramey raises four arguments in its supplemental brief, asserting inter alia that the district court overread the Fifth Circuit’s prior ruling in Ramey & Schwaller and that SBA failed adequately to consider pertinent factors before denying Ramey’s loan forgiveness application. SBA responds that

3

Case: 24-20533 Document: 121-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2026

No. 24-20533

Ramey misreads circuit precedent and provides inadequate legal support for its arguments about SBA’s responsibilities.

Having carefully reviewed the record, the briefing, and the thorough statement of reasons provided by the district court, we affirm the dismissal of Ramey’s claims for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court.

AFFIRMED.