The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: October 4–10, 2020
There’s little to report from last week.
The Ninth Circuit on Modified Injunctions
The only decision of note was Flores v. Barr, in which the Ninth Circuit discussed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court’s ongoing supervision of a consent decree.
Simplifying a bit, Flores involved an immigration-related consent decree that requires (among other things) that the government transfer apprehended minors to licensed programs within three days. After an independent monitor reported that the government was using hotels to house apprehended minors, the district court ordered the government to stop.
The government then appealed. It also asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s order. And in seeking the stay, the government argued that appellate jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the district court had effectively modified an injunction.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It determined that the district court’s order required the government to take actions that were already required of it under the consent decree. With no modification of an injunction, there was no jurisdiction for the government’s appeal. So a stay was not warranted; the government was unlikely to succeed in its appeal.
Flores v. Barr, 2020 WL 5951115 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2020), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw.
Cert Denied in Hinson v. Bias
Also of note, the Supreme Court denied cert in Hinson v. Bias. The petition contended that the Eleventh Circuit exceeded its limited jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal and made its own assessment of the summary-judgment record. Given the frequency with which defendants flout those jurisdictional limits, I was hoping the Court would reiterate them.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
It’s the fourth annual winter-break edition of the weekly roundup. As I have in previous years, I took a few weeks off from Final Decisions. But I’m back with a roundup covering the last three weeks of 2022. Those weeks saw a pair of collateral-order decisions, the effect of Nasrallah v. Barr on other kinds […]
Continue reading....
There were three cases of note from last week. The Third Circuit held that notices of appeal do not encompass post-notice decisions. Litigants must file a second notice, or amend the first, to appeal those decisions. The D.C. Circuit held that it could not review a facial challenge to a statute in an injunction appeal […]
Continue reading....
There were a bunch of interesting decisions last week. In the continuing saga of the Rule 3(c) amendments, the Second Circuit acknowledged them and applied them retroactively. In other decisions, the Sixth Circuit explained that it could review class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction. The Fourth Circuit clarified the basis for its […]
Continue reading....
I took a break from the roundup last week, but I’m back with a double-sized edition. In the last two weeks, another circuit didn’t recognize that the recent Rule 3(c) amendments abrogated its caselaw. The Eleventh Circuit determined that a stay put an action in “suspended animation,” thereby allowing an appeal from the stay. The […]
Continue reading....
Last week, the Tenth Circuit once again used a pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal to limit the scope of its review despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The Second Circuit gave a thorough explanation of its jurisdiction over decisions made in post-judgment proceedings. The Fifth Circuit heard an appeal from […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....