Scholarship

Calabrese on Making Law While Denying Mandamus

Kylie G. Calabrese chronicles a recent power grab by the Fifth Circuit—issuing binding precedent while denying mandamus—and the possible reasons behind it.

June 12, 2020

By Bryan Lammon

Kylie G. Calabrese has published a note in the Baylor Law Review titled Mandamus Madness in the Fifth Circuit: The Aftermath of In re JP Morgan. Calabrese chronicles—and criticizes—last year’s Fifth Circuit decision in In re JP Morgan Chase & Co., in which the panel denied mandamus yet purported to issue a binding holding on the underlying legal issues. She explains how this differed from past instances of appellate courts’ denying mandamus while “nudging” district courts to take another look at an issue. (We saw an example of that last year when the D.C. Circuit denied mandamus but said the district court was wrong in refusing to certify an issue for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).) She also shows how inappropriate this decision was in its disregard for the district court and the final-judgment rule. And she explores what might have motivated the author of the JP Morgan opinion—Judge Jerry Smith—to take such an unprecedented step.

The note is a great read—interesting, well written, and short. Check it out at the link below.

Kylie G. Calabrese, Mandamus Madness in the Fifth Circuit: The Aftermath of In re JP Morgan, 72 Baylor Law Review 165 (2020), available at the Baylor Law Review.

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

Anderson, Gugliuzza & Rantanen on Federal Circuit Mandamus
Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza, and Jason Rantanen have a new paper on the Federal Circuit’s use of mandamus, focusing particularly on patent cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
The Federal Circuit and Advisory Mandamus on Improper Venue
The Federal Circuit used advisory mandamus to hold that servers alone were not enough to establish venue in a patent-infringement suit.
Split Ninth Circuit Uses Mandamus to Reverse Class Discovery
The court deemed clearly erroneous an order requiring the defendant to disclose its customers so that class counsel could find a named plaintiff.
Guest Post—In Re Trump: Opening the Mandamus Can of Worms
Alan B. Morrison addresses the recent use of mandamus petitions in the emoluments suits and the alternative of discretionary interlocutory appeals.
Jurisdictional Chicken In The D.C. Circuit’s Emoluments Appeal
Will the district court certify the Congress’s emoluments suit for an immediate appeal? Or will the D.C. Circuit use mandamus to order certification?