In Lewis v. Crochet, the Fifth Circuit found that a ruling about the attorney-client privilege was properly appealed under the “collateral order” doctrine, applying Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009).

Judge James Ho’s dissent from the denial of en banc review in Gonzalez v. Trevino persuaded the ultimate audience yesterday, when the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, and allowed the wrongful-arrest claim of Sylvia Gonzalez – an unfortunate victim of small-town politics – to proceed past the pleadings stage. No. 22-1025 (U.S. June 21, 2024). His opinion built on Judge Andrew Oldham’s dissent at the panel stage.

Palmquist v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. provides helpful summaries of two important standards for evaluating motions to remand:

1. Repleading. “[A] plaintiff should not be penalized for adhering to the pleading standards of the jurisdiction in which the case was originally brought. Otherwise, where there are potentially diverse parties, plaintiffs would essentially have to plead the federal pleading standard in state court for fear of having their claims against non-diverse parties thrown out upon reaching federal courts for failing to comply with the demands of Rule 12(b)(6).”
2. New Matters in Repleading. “[A]dding new causes of actions and clarifying already alleged causes of actions are not mutually exclusive. We have already determined that the Palmquists may not expand the substance of their pleadings, for jurisdictional purposes, with the negligent-undertaking allegations. We, too, follow circuit precedent by permitting them to ‘clarify’ their already averred jurisdictional allegations after removal for purposes of an improper joinder analysis.”

No. 23-40197 (May 28, 2024).

In 2022’s Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court disapproved of “means-ends” analysis in Second Amendment cases:

In today’s Rahimi opinion, the Supreme Court walked that disapproval back, while nominally following the same history-based test:

The result was an 8-1 reversal of the Fifth Circuit opinion holding that the subject of a domestic protective order had a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm. (I argued that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion took “history” too far in this Dallas Morning News editorial last year.)

On remand from the Supreme Court after that court’s rejection of a challenge to the CFPB’s funding based on the Appropriations Clause, the Fifth Circuit issued a short judgment reflecting that ruling. Interestingly, the judgment expressly identifies the rehearing deadline while striking an earlier 28j filing by the plaintiff:

That filing is no longer available online, but the CFPB’s response suggests that the parties dispute the scope and effect of the Supreme Court’s mandate–and what that may mean for the other challenges to the CFPB presented in this case.

In Chamber of Commerce v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the district court (for the second time) transferred a challenge to a new CFPB rule to the District of the District of Columbia. The district court reasoned, inter alia:

“Under Plaintiffs’ theory, there isn’t a city in the country where venue would not lie, as every city has customers who may potentially be impacted by the Rule. Plaintiffs could find any Chamber of Commerce in any city of America and add them to this lawsuit in order to establish venue where they desire. It appears that this is exactly what Plaintiffs attempted to do by recommending transfer to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Here, once again, the only tie to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, was that one of the Plaintiffs happens to be there. None of the events occurred there and there is only a possibility that tangential harm could be felt by the Rule.” 

(citation omitted, emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion in that conclusion, granting mandamus relief (for a second time) to prevent the transfer. It reasoned, inter alia, that the request for a nationwide injunction materially affected the analysis:

“Final Rules are not meant to be ‘localized’—they are usually designed to affect the entire nation. That’s why plaintiffs seek nationwide injunctions when a final rule is poised to go into effect—they seek to block the effect across the nation. Therefore, this case is not one where Fort Worth citizens have a lesser stake in the litigation than D.C. citizens.”

In re Chamber of Commerce, No. 24-10463-CV (June 18, 2024). While that reasoning seems destined to drive administrative-law challenges to the MDL process rather than the district courts of the Fifth Circuit, it reflects the present state of the law on this issue.

In RSBCO v. United States, the Fifth Circuit confronted a charge issue, called “a Casteel problem” in Texas state practice. The question was whether RSBCO established an excuse for late-filed tax returns, and the jury questions were as follows:

The jury answered “yes” to both questions. The problem emerged because the “mitigators” instruction for the second question was correct, but the “impediments” instrution was not. Therefore:

“Given the form’s single yes-or-no question as to mitigators ‘and/or’ impediments, there is no way logically to reconcile the verdict form to contain the improper instruction. Thus, the ‘challenged instruction could [well] have affected the outcome of the case,’ so we must vacate the verdict and remand for a new trial.”

No.  23-30062 (June 13, 2024) (citation omitted).

I didn’t really understand the issues in the bump-stock case until I saw the below graphic in Judge Elrod’s majority opinion for the en banc Fifth Circuit. Once I saw that, I realized why ATF had gone out over its skiis, and why the Supreme Court affirmed today.

As I argued a year ago, more than once, the Supreme Court holds 9-0 this morning that the mifepristone plaintiffs lacked standing:

In 1949, a pipeline company received a grant from the Board of Mississipi Levee Commissioners to build and operate two crude oil pipelines in Issaquena County, Mississippi (the least populated county in the U.S. located to the east of the Mississippi River). A dispute arose over permitting fees, and the pipeline company sued the Levee Board for, inter alia, violating the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal: “Despite its significant investment in its pipelines, including their 2007 relocation, Mid Valley does not identify any affirmative or mutual obligations the Levee Board owed stemming from the 1949 Permit—because none are apparent in its express terms.” Accordingly, the Court distinguished this situation, where the permit clearly left complete discretion with the Board, from other permitting cases that did create some consideration / mutuality of obligation. Mid Valley Pipeline Co., LLC v. Rodgers, No. 23-60536 (June 5, 2024).

After receiving considerable public comment at the start of 2024, the Fifth Circuit chose not to implement a rule about the use of generative AI, stating:

Governor Abbott has appointed the three inaugural members of the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals: Hon. Scott Brister, presently of Hunton Andrews Kurth, well-known statewide from his service on the Texas Supreme Court, and the author of City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005); Hon. April Farris, of the First Court of Appeals; and Hon. Scott Field, of the 480th District Court in Williamson County, and formerly of the Third Court of Appeals.

Little v Llano County addressed the removal of books from a public library, producing three opinions and a judgment affirming a preliminary injunction against the removal. The two judges voting to affirm focused on Circuit precedent, Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995), and its statement:

“that officials may not ‘remove books from school library shelves “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to `prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'”

(cleaned up). The case also appears to present the first use of the phrase “butt and fart” (a shorthand for one set of the books at issue) in a three-opinion panel case. No. 23-50224 (June 6, 2024).

SKAV, LLC, the operator of a Best Western hotel in Abbeville, Louisiana, sued a surplus-lines insurer about a hurricane-damage claim. The insurer sought to compel arbitration, based on a Louisiana statute that says:

A. No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this state and covering subjects located, resident, or to be performed in this state, or any group health and accident policy insuring a resident of this state regardless of where made or delivered, shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement ..

    (2) Depriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer. …

D. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shallnot prohibit a forum or venue selection clause in a policy form that is not subject to approval by the Department of Insurance.

Acknowledging differing approaches by district courts to examine this issue, the Fifth Circuit held in SKAV, LLC v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co. that section (a)(2) of this statute applied to arbitration, and was not affected by section (D), which was fairly read as limited to forum and venue-selection clauses. No. 23-30293 (June 5, 2024).

Judge Easterbrook’s recent opinion about good fonts for legal writing emphasized the importance of “x-height,” which is the relative size of a small “x” to a capital letter in a particular font. It’s important to note, though, that x-height is only one of the relevant size measures, and an excessively high x-height can cause problems with “descending” letters such as “p” and “y.” This excellent article, from which the below illustration is taken, further explains this point while defining the other relevant measurements.

Legendary Seventh Circuit judge Frank Easterbrook has written authoritatively on many topics. Thanks to AsymaDesign, LLC v. CBL & Assocs. Mgmnt, Inc., the choice of a good font is now among them.

Judge Easterbrook noted that he was writing in Palatino Linotype, the standard font of the Seventh Circuit (and one of two that I regularly use, alternating with Book Antigua). He explained that it’s a desirable font for legal writing because it has a large “x-height” (the height of a lowercase “x” compared to a capital letter), along with similar fonts designed for book publication:

The Appellant made the unfortunate choice of Bernhard Modern, a “display face suited to movie posters and used in the title sequence of the Twilight Zone TV show.” Because of that font’s low x-height, it’s hard to read in book-like writing:

He concluded: “We hope that Bernhard Modern has made its last appearance in an appellate brief. “

AAPS v. ABIM, No. 23-40423 (June 3, 2024), presented a question about pleading amendment, in which the Fifth Circuit said that the Galveston Division’s local rule about amendments was inconsistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.’s “liberal amendment scheme”:

Other local rules on this, and other, common features of ciivl litigation may draw challanges as a result of this opinion.

Longtime fans of the Phantom comic strip know that, when the plot becomes particularly complex, the strip’s author will make a cameo and give an update, announced by the phrase “For Those Who Came in Late!” In that spirit, 600Camp provides an update about the ongoing litigation about a CFPB rule involving credit-card late fees:

• On May 7, President Biden touted the rule in his State of the Union address.
• May 10, Judge Pittman enjoined the rule, based on a Fifth Circuit case about the CFPB’s funding that the Supreme Court overruled a few days later;
• On May 28, Judge Pittman granted the CFPB’s renewed motion to transfer the case to the District of Columbia (after an earlier transfer order was reversed by the Fifth Circuit, based on the procedural interplay between the injunction application and transfer motion);
• A new mandamus petition followed, leading to an administrative stay of the transfer order until mid-June along with a request for a reponse to the petition.

The chaos caused by the Third Reich’s systematic theft of valuable art continues to the present day, as shown by Emden v. Museum of Fine Arts–a dispute about ownership of a painting called “The Marketplace of Pirna” (right). The claim of the heirs to the one-time owner failed because of the “act of state” doctrine, as the Fifth Circuit explained:

The most straightforward and charitable reading of the Emdens’ complaint inevitably requires a ruling by a U.S. court that the Dutch government invalidly sent Moser the By Bellotto Pirna. The Emdens may be right: The Monuments Men may have improperly sent the By Bellotto Pirna to the [Dutch Art Property Foundation (“SNK”)]; the SNK may have unjustifiably sent Moser the By Bellotto Pirna even though he had a claim to only the After Bellotto Pirna; and the Museum may be violating the Washington Principles by refusing to return the painting to the Emdens.

But, per the act of state doctrine, it is not our job to call into question the decisions of foreign nations. As pleaded, the SNK’s shipping Moser the By Bellotto Pirna is an official act of the Dutch government. The validity and legal effect of that act is one that we may not dispute.

No. 23-20224 (May 29, 2024).

After much Sturm und Drang, the District of the District of Columbia returned Clarke v. CFTC to the Texas district court where that case started, reasoning:

[T]he Court will follow the weight of authority and transfer this case back to the requesting jurisdiction because the record establishes that it was transferred prematurely. The Court makes no decision on the Parties’ respective arguments on whether transfer would otherwise be appropriate. It certainly would be easy for the Court to keep this case—the Court currently has a case involving the same challenge against Defendant that is fully briefed and scheduled for argument soon. Nor does the Court quite understand how the District Court in Texas abused its discretion in making its determination. But the weight of authority instructs the Court on how such requests are routinely addressed, and the Court will follow that course of action here.

Clarke v. CFTC (citation omitted) (D.D.C. May 22, 2024).

Thryv, Inc. v. NLRB, a review of the NLRB’s handling of an unfair labor practices case, presents deft usage of a typographical device called the “dinkus”:

Thanks to the observant Cedric Bond for pointing this out!

Hager v. Brinker Texas, Inc. reminds that the business-records exception to the hearsay rule has significant limitations. The Fifth Circuit summarized an earlier case, in a similar dispute about the admissibility of the employer’s records, as holding:

“[A]n employer’s human resource managers’ reports and letters tracing steps in investigating complaints of sexual harassment against an employee leading to discharge were admissible business records; but it also recognized that such reports would be ‘inadmissible where their “primary utility is for litigation.”‘”

Based on that rule, the Court held:

[T]he Venable declaration and Exhibit B were prepared immediately after the threat of Sharnez’s litigation loomed as Brinker knew that Sharnez complained of racial discrimination and mentioned contacting her lawyer. Venable’s conclusory assertion that the declaration and Exhibit B were made in the regular course of Brinker’s business, with no further explanation about whether it was company procedure to make similar records, does not frustrate this conclusion.  Quite the opposite, Venable admitted that he had never before conducted an investigation into a guest complaint of racial discrimination, further undercutting any claim that the declaration was made in the “regular course” of business. 

No. 21-20235 (May 22, 2024).

Lest one think the law of adminstrative stays had become more settled with time, MCR Oil Tools, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp. reminds otherwise. The manufacturer of a torch used in oil drilling challenged a new safety regulation on its product. The three judges on the panel reacted in different ways:

• The majority opinion defers the motion for stay to the next available argument panel;
• A dissent emphasized the need for immediate action, given the regulation’s effect on significant outstanding orders;
• A concurrence analogized the case to a recent challenge to the Texas ban on drag shows.

No. 24-60230 (May 23, 2024).

“Double, double, toil and trouble,” chanted the three witches of Macbeth.  “Double insulated,” said the Fifth Circuit in CFSA v. CFPB, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism was so far removed from Congress’s ordinary appropriations process that it violated the Appropriation Clause of the Constitution. Parting company with the above, the Supreme Court didn’t use the word “double” in reversing the Fifth Circuit, and holding that the CFPB is appropriately funded, considering history and practicality. CFPB v. CFSA, No. 22-448 (U.S. March 16, 2024).

Martin v. LCMC Health Holdings, Inc. presents a creative use of the “federal officer” removal statute. A hospital argued that because its patient-portal systems were part of a federal information program created by Congress, it “acts under the direction of a federal officer when embedding tracking pixels onto its website where patients may access their medical records.” While creative, the argument didn’t work: “LCMC’s relationship with the federal government is too attenuated to show any delegation of legal authority, and consequently, LCMC cannot show that it acted pursuant to a federal officer’s directions for purposes of federal officer removal. ” No. 23-30522 (May 13, 2024).

In a counterpoint to some treatments of standing in the mifepristone litigation, the Fifth Circuit rejected Texas’s standing to challenge an SEC disclosure requirement, reasoning:

As the States conceded during oral argument, there is no guarantee that regulated parties will always pass costs on to their consumers. Some costs may be too small to warrant a cost pass-through. So any cost pass-through must be established through evidence. We look to the evidence in the record to determine whether the facts of a specific case support “likely . . . pecuniary harm” to a suing party.  Evidence couched in hypothetical language cannot support such an injury. Here, the record provides only speculation about the possibility of increased costs to investors as a result of new regulatory burdens on the funds.

State of Texas v. SEC, No. 23-60079 (May 10, 2024) (citations omitted, paragraph breaks removed, emphasis added).

The civil-criminal distinction was outcome determinative of the issue presented in Charitable DAF Fund, L.P. v. Highland Capital Management, L.P.:

“Highland incurred virtually all its contempt-related expenses because the bankruptcy court permitted extensive discovery and conducted a marathon evidentiary hearing to unearth Dondero’s role in filing the Motion [for Leave]. But Dondero’s intentions were relevant only to criminal contempt—a sanction the bankruptcy court was powerless to impose. Dondero’s intentions—and virtually all of the discovery and the bankruptcy court’s mini-trial—were irrelevant to civil contempt. The only question in civil contempt is whether and to what extent Highland was damaged by DAF’s choice to file the  Motion in the wrong forum. Neither Highland nor the bankruptcy court was permitted to seize on DAF’s error and leverage it into a punitive proceeding.”

No. 22-11036 (April 4, 2024) (citations omitted).

In a dispute about insurance coverage for a freak accident at a drag-racing event, the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the policy was ambiguous, reasoning:

“[W]e must construe every part of the CGL Policy—the CGL Declaration, the CGL Form, and the CGL Endorsements simultaneously. So construed, the CGL Policy is not ambiguous.

Begin by considering the relationship between the CGL Form and the CGL Endorsements. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Given that the CGL Form provides general statements regarding coverage, a CGL Endorsement’s more specific statement regarding the same will control where the two conflict. … 

As the CDE Endorsement and MV Endorsement illustrate, the CGL Endorsements modify express subsets of provisions in the CGL Form. They do not, however, expressly purport to modify the CGL Declaration, other provisions in the CGL Form, or other CGL Endorsements. So, relative to the CGL Form, each of the CGL Endorsements addresses a narrower set of provisions in greater detail.

Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Flyin Diesel Performance & Offroad, LLC, No. 23-50336 (April 26, 2024).

In a return to the Fifth Circuit after an earlier panel opinion affirmed an antisuit injunction, the Court applied the Lauritzen-Rhoditis factors to conclude that Liberian law, rather than American, governed a boat crewmember’s claim about catching malaria aboard the ship:

Considered in the context of this case, involving traditional maritime shipping activities and assertions of wrongdoing yielding a seaman’s “shipboard injury,” none of the Lauritzen-Rhoditis factors that the Supreme Court has deemed significant to the choice of-law determination in traditional maritime shipping cases involve the United States. Specifically, the law of the flag factor, which generally is “of cardinal importance” in the traditional maritime shipping context, points to Liberia.

Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping PTE, No. 22-30758 (May 1, 2024).

In Sanders v. The Boeing Co., No. 22-20317 (May 2, 2024), the Fifth Circuit summarized the two key holdings that resulted from certification of a question about the Texas limitations-savings statute (reproduced in full below):

1. “[Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code] Section 16.064(a)(1) applies whenever the previous court dismissed an action for lack of jurisdiction. Thus is so even when the court ‘erred and actually had jurisdiction or could have had jurisdiction had the claims been pleaded differently.'” (citation omitted)
2. “[A] dismissal or other disposition does not ‘become final’ for purposes of Section 16.064(a)(2) until the parties have exhausted their appellate remedies and the court’s power to alter the dismissal has ended.'” (citation omitted, cleaned up).

If you have ever wondered “can the party-presentation principle help distinguish holding from dicta?’ then you will enjoy my new article in the Cornell Law Review Online, which hopefully offers some new perspective on some longstanding concepts.

Phillips v. ERCOT addresses a dispute between ERCOT and the liquidating trust of Entrust Energy, a supplier of electriciity to end users, who went into bankruptcy after receiving a large bill in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. In resolving this dispute, the Fifth Circuit held:

• No immunity for ERCOT. The six relevant factors were “an even split,” but because ‘our court has indicated repeatedly that factor 2 [the source of the entity’s funding] is the most important, ERCOT is not an arm of Texas and not entitled to immunity in federal court.”
• Abstention. Burford abstention was required because, inter alia: “federal adjudication of the [programs at issue] risks dramatic intrusion into Texas’s specialized system of electric utility regulation and would disrupt Texas’s efforts to establish a coherent and uniform policy for electric utilities. Under the specific circumstances of this case, the fact that the takings claim arises under federal law and that Texas does not provide any sort of specialized system for review does not support hearing the claim.” (footnote omittted).

No. 22-20603 (April 29, 2024).

To the right is a painting of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. A river-crossing issue also arose in Good River Farms, L.P. v. TXI Operations, L.P. A severe flood on the Colorado River breached a water reservoir on a commercial property, which in turn led to the flooding of a neighboring farm.

Liability under the Texas Water Code turned on whether “surface waters” (the water in the reservoir) caused the problem at the farm, or whether it was water from the Colorado River (not considered “surface water” under the Code, because the river is a “bed or channel in which water is accustomed to flow”).

The Fifth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support a judgment for the farm, reasoning that “[t]he jury apparently concluded that the water was not overflow fromthe river, but surface water accumulated in such quantity that it ran contrary to the riverine flow.” No. 23-50330 (April 25, 2024).

The Fifth Circuit reversed because of a new trial-court reply-brief argument in Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., reasoning:

A class of stock purchasers allege that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation fraudulently misrepresented the potential value of its Shenandoah oil field project in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of federal securities law. During the class certification proceedings below, Plaintiffs presented new evidence for the first time in a reply brief. As a result, Anadarko did not have fair opportunity to address that new evidence at an earlier stage in the briefing. So the district court should have permitted Anadarko to file a sur-reply responding to that new evidence contained in Plaintiffs’ reply.

No. 23-20424 (April 24, 2024).

As noted previously, the Fifth Circuit denied en banc review by an 8-8 vote in a contentious forum dispute. The breakdown of the votes is follows (the entire panel majority opinion appears in the chart, and the panel dissent is reproduced as an exhibit to the dissent from the denial of en banc review):

The Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc vote in Consumers’ Research v. CPSC, an unsuccessful constitutional structure to the Consumer Product Safety Commission in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, is summarized in the below chart. The vote was accompanied by a concurrence and two dissenting opinions.

The Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc vote in Book People, Inc. v. Wong, a successful constitutional challenge to a prior-restraintish law involving the content of books in school libraries, is summarized in the below chart:

The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of securities-fraud claims in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., holding that the district court had misread a prior appellate opinion. The Court stated, inter alia:

Any fair reading shows why our prior opinion very clearly did not hold the alleged fraud was fully disclosed by October 2019. The most obvious sign is the absence of any statement expressly concluding that all purported fraud was fully disclosed by October 2019 and that therefore, the class period was truncated. Given that such a conclusion would all but end the case as to Oklahoma Firefighters, it stands to reason that if that was actually our decision, we would have said so explicitly. To borrow a familiar phrase from statutory interpretation principles, we do not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”

No. 23-10696 (April 18, 2024) (citation omitted).

Recent dialogue about the benefits and drawbacks of single-judge judicial district has led to further public remarks, which have in turn drawn interesting rebuttal from commentators in Above the Law and Balls and Strikes.

(It bears mention in this discussion that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine – the lead plaintiff in the mifepristone litigation that touched off the present debate – was created three months before that litigation by several out-of-state anti-abortion groups, as explained in an informative Intercept article that discusses the broader history of such groups.)

Resolving another of the simmering venue disputes that have drawn considerable attention in recent weeks, the full Fifth Circuit denied en banc review (an 8-8 tie vote) of the denial of mandamus relief in In re SpaceX – a challenge to the district court’s order that transferred a dispute between SpaceX and the NLRB to the Central District of California.

The surprisingly slippery question whether Texas law allows a takings claim to proceed against the state came to an anticlimactic end with the Supreme Court’s opinion in DeVillier v. Texas:

As Texas explained at oral argument, its state-law inverse-condemnation cause of action provides a vehicle for takings claims based on both the Texas Constitution and the Takings Clause. …  And, although Texas asserted that proceeding under the state-law cause of action would require an amendment to the complaint, it also assured the Court that it would not oppose any attempt by DeVillier and the other petitioners to seek one.

No. 22-913 (U.S. April 16, 2024).

Members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church sued the City of San Antonio about its plans for a large city park that contains an area of particular religious significance to this church. One aspect of the case involved physical access to that area. After the City complied with the trial-court’s order on that issue, the Fifth Circuit held that part of the case was moot, and did not apply the “voluntary cessation” (i.e., “a defendant could … pick up where he left off”) exception to mootness:

[T]he City affirmed that it undertook several additional efforts “going beyond what the district court ordered.” The City conceded that removing the limb allowed it to reconfigure the construction fencing and it subsequently granted public access to the entire area. Likewise, the City granted Appellants access to conduct a religious ceremony at the Sacred Area from midnight to 4 a.m. on November 18, 2023, during hours when the Park is normally closed. Furthermore, on November 21, 2023, the City moved to dismiss its crossappeal in this action, deciding to no longer pursue the issue of access to the Sacred Area. Based on these subsequent developments, “[i]t is therefore clear that [the City officials] harbor no animosity toward [Appellants].” Appellants now have “no reasonable expectation that the wrong challenged by [them] would be repeated.” Thus, the voluntary cessation exception does not apply.

Perez v. City of San Antonio, No. 23-50746 (April 11, 2024) (citations omitted).

After a Fifth Circuit panel granted mandamus relief about a transfer of a case involving the CFPB to the District of Columbia, the district court there entered this Minute Order on April 10:

This case was received from the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on March 29, 2024. On April 8, 2024, the Court received a copy of the Order Reopening Case and Providing Notice to the United States District Court of the District of Columbia … issued by the Texas district court in accordance with In re Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, No. 24-10266 (5th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024) (attached to Notice and Order). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case while an appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, and it ordered the district court to “reopen the case and to give notice to D.D.C. that its transfer was without jurisdiction and should be disregarded.” While the Court is not inclined to “disregard” a case on its docket, and it has considerable discretion to supervise its own cases, a review of the Notice and Order, as well as the docket in the Northern District of Texas, reflects that the case is now proceeding there under the supervision of another district court. Therefore, the case will be terminated on this court’s docket at this time without prejudice. This order should not be read to express any view on the transfer question, which has not been presented to this Court to decide. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case on the docket of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, back in New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit has asked for supplemental briefing about “whether or not an ownership interest in a nonparty large credit card issuer would be substantially affected by the outcome of this litigation,” for purposes of evaluation potential judicial recusal. On May 3, the panel released a revised opinion.

I hope you find this cross-post from 600 Commerce to be informative!

The most recent Advocate (the quarterly publication of the State Bar of Texas Litigation Section) has several articles about how the new Fifteenth Court of Appeals will get off the ground. I have a short piece on where the new court is likely to look for precedent, since it will have none of its own to start. I hope you find it useful in thinking about this important new appellate forum.

In D&T Partners LLC v. Baymark Partners Mgmnt., LLC, “[a] group of individuals allegedly sought to steal the assets and trade secrets of an e-commerce company,” and “did so with shell entities, corrupt lending practices, and a fraudulent bankruptcy.” The plainitffs’ complaint did not state a RICO claim, however:

“While the complaint alleges coordinated theft, the alleged victims are limited in number, and the scope and nature of the scheme was finite and focused on a singular objective. … [T]his does not constitute a “pattern” of racketeering conduct sufficient to state a RICO claim ….”

No. 22-11148 (Apr. 4, 2024).

In a muscular display of appellate review, in Career Colleges & Schools of Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., the Fifth Circuit:

• Disagreed with the  district court’s conclusion that an association of career schools lacked standing due to a lack of immediate irreparable injury, identifying three types of injury suffered as a result of new DOE regulations about certain defenses to student-loan repayment;
• Concluded that, as a matter of law, the association had satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction;
• Gave the resulting injunction nationwide effect; and
• Ordered: “The stay pending appeal remains in effect until the district court enters the preliminary injunction.”

No. 23-50491 (April 4, 2024).

Long-running litigation about control of the Jackson airport led to the en banc court holding on April 2 that the appeal was moot. A breakdown of the viewpoints appears below:

Several disputes about inter-circuit venue transfers are ongoing (I was recently interviewed by Bloomberg about this phenomenon):

• SpaceX. In a dispute between SpaceX and the NLRB, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether to review a transfer order en banc. The NLRB recently filed its response to an unusual order from the panel asking the NLRB to explain several actions taken earlier in the proceedings. The gist of the NLRB’s response was:

Only one court may have jurisdiction at a time. The transferee court was notobliged to follow the February 26 order, and zealous advocacy required the NLRB to present its legal arguments as to why it should not be followed to the Central District of California. Thus, the NLRB urged that court, not to ignore this Court’sorder, but to acknowledge it and respectfully decline retransfer. 

• CFTC. In a dispute involving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the District of the District of Columbia has received the district court’s request to return the case, along with briefing and argument from the parties about the appropriate next step, and as of April 6 continued to have that request under consideration.
• CFPB. In a dispute involving the CFPB and a new rule about credit-card late fees, a 2-1 panel decision granted mandamus relief on April 5–after a case had been transferred to the District of the District of Columbia, concluding:

Because the Chamber had a short window of time to either (1) comply with the Final Rule, or (2) seek a preliminary injunction, the district court’s inaction amounted to an effective denial of the Chamber’s motion for a preliminary injunction. That effective denial is properly before us on appeal. The district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case after this appeal was docketed because doing so would alter its status. … The district court is ORDERED to reopen the case and to give notice to D.D.C. that its transfer was without jurisdiction and should be disregarded.

• CFPB dissent. The dissent in the CFPB case concluded: “For the foregoing reasons, I believe that the new proposition of law created by the majority is incompatible with district court discretion over docket management and prudent policing of forum shopping. Finally, I am confident the District Court for the District of Columbia will give the suggestion that it should disregard a case docketed by it its closest attention.”
• HHS. The Court has expedited argument (to May 1) of National Infusion Center v. Becerra , a challenge to the dismissal of a case about 2022 drug-reimbursement regulations on venue grounds (after the dismissal of a party for jurisdictional reasons).

Several matters involving inter-circuit venue transfers are ongoing:

• In a dispute between SpaceX and the NLRB, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether to review a transfer order en banc. The panel recently issued this unusual order asking the NLRB’s counsel to explain several actions taken earlier in the proceedings.
• In a dispute involving the CFTC, the District of the District of Columbia has received the district court’s request to return the case, and is receiving briefing and argument from the parties about the appropriate next step.
• In another dispute involving the CFPB, the Fifth Circuit has administratively stayed a transfer order and referred the matter to the next available argument panel.

A recent policy statement from the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended changes to judge-assignment practices in district courts. The statement has drawn considerable attention both pro and con; this Volokh Conspiracy post is a good summary of the “con” side. A recent letter from the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas says that its judges have declined to materially change that district’s judge-assignment policies.