Jurisdictional Chicken In The D.C. Circuit’s Emoluments Appeal
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.
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
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....
In In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a preemption issue as part of a certified appeal that concerned the right to a jury trial. The district court had thought that only the jury-trial issue warranted an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). But the Seventh Circuit concluded that the […]
Continue reading....
Mandamus is supposedly an extraordinary remedy. But a new paper from Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza, and Jason Rantanen shows that grants of the writ have become somewhat ordinary in Federal Circuit. And those grants have largely addressed venue issues in patent cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. (I discussed a trio […]
Continue reading....
In Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the D.C. Circuit held that district courts cannot “recertify” an order and thereby restart the ten-day window for seeking permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court in Strange had rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai via Twitter. […]
Continue reading....
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....