Appellate Decisions

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?

July 22, 2019

By Bryan Lammon

Update, September 4, 2019: Back before the district court, the court certified its decisions for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b). Trump then petitioned to appeal, and on September 4, 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted the petition.

In the emoluments suit brought by members of Congress, the D.C. Circuit tried to avoid weighing in on whether it can order a district court—via a writ of mandamus—to certify an order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). But it effectively did so; the court of appeals said that the district court was wrong to deny certification, and it “remand[ed] the matter to the district court for immediate reconsideration.” The panel appears to hope that the district court will certify the decision for an immediate appeal and thus avoid any dispute over the appellate court’s mandamus power. It’s essentially a game of appellate-jurisdiction chicken.

The case was another emoluments suit against Donald Trump, this one brought by members of Congress. The district court denied Trump’s motions to dismiss and then denied Trump’s request to certify those decisions for an immediate appeal under § 1292(b). Trump then sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit, asking the court to either reverse the denial of the motions to dismiss or direct the district court to certify the decisions for an immediate appeal.

“Denying” Mandamus

The D.C. Circuit denied mandamus on the merits of the motions to dismiss; Trump had not shown the clear and indisputable right to dismissal that was required to issue the writ.

The court then denied mandamus—or at least said it was denying mandamus—on the § 1292(b) certification. But it also said that the district court was wrong to deny certification. According to the D.C. Circuit, the district court’s denial of the motions to dismiss “squarely [met] the criteria for certification under Section 1292(b).” The courts of appeals are divided, however, on whether mandamus can issue to reverse the denial of § 1292(b) certification. (Recall that the Fourth Circuit recently used mandamus to do so in another emoluments case.) Rather than weigh in on the issue, the D.C. Circuit denied mandamus without prejudice and purported to “remand the matter to the district court for immediate reconsideration of the motion to certify.”

So the D.C. Circuit said it was denying the petition for mandamus. But it also said that the district court was wrong in refusing to certify the decision for a § 1292(b) appeal and told the district court to re-examine that decision.

What now?

I see a few issues here. First, it’s not clear what the court is “remanding.” Mandamus is an original proceeding in the court of appeals, and once it’s denied that proceeding ends.

More fundamentally, we now have a game of jurisdictional chicken, and we’ll see who blinks first. Will the district court take the hint and certify its decisions for an immediate appeal? Or will it again refuse, requiring the D.C. Circuit to hear another petition for mandamus (the panel retained jurisdiction to hear a subsequent petition should the district court again deny certification)? And if Trump files a second mandamus petition, will the D.C. Circuit side with the Fourth Circuit and use the writ to reverse the denial of § 1292(b) certification?

Stay tuned.

I couldn’t find the D.C. Circuit’s order on its website, but it’s available here (PDF, 157 KB). Credit to @ZoeTillman for the link.

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

Preemption Issues & the Scope of § 1292(b)
The Seventh Circuit concluded that a preemption defense was within the scope of a § 1292(b) appeal over the right to a jury trial.
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.
Another Court Says No Restarting the § 1292(b) Clock
The D.C. Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that “recertifying” an order for interlocutory appeal does not restart § 1292(b)’s ten-day deadline.
Akron Symposium on Federal Appeals
The Akron Law Review symposium on federal appeals is out, exploring a variety of issues in appellate procedure and jurisdiction.
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.