July 11, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of Texas, 24-50631, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Graves, Duncan), Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, mootness
    • Affirming dismissal of challenge to University of Texas’s pre-Harvard policy as moot, reversing mootness dismissal of challenge to post-Harvard policy, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The Fifth Circuit considered whether UT’s revised admissions practices complied with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which barred race-based admissions. While many universities responded to Harvard by removing admissions officers’ access to applicants’ racial data, UT retained internal access to such data, even after formally ending race-conscious admissions. SFFA sued, claiming that this access constitutes a per se Equal Protection and Title VI violation and that UT’s new policy is a façade for continued racial discrimination. Although the district court dismissed the case as moot, the Fifth Circuit held that claims challenging UT’s revised policy remain live and actionable.
    • Historically, UT openly used race as a factor in admissions, but it formally abandoned this approach in 2023, rescinding relevant policies and implementing a facially race-neutral process. The court agreed that SFFA’s challenge to the pre-Harvard policy was moot because the policy was repealed and unlikely to recur. Even though UT changed its policies in response to the Harvard ruling rather than direct litigation pressure, the Fifth Circuit applied the voluntary cessation doctrine and held that UT had met its burden to show the old policy wouldn’t return, rendering those claims moot.
    • However, SFFA’s claims against UT’s revised admissions policy remain viable. The court found that admissions officers’ ongoing access to applicants’ racial data and aggregate demographic dashboards may still enable discrimination and thus continues to raise a justiciable controversy. SFFA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit such access, and the Fifth Circuit concluded that effective relief is still possible. As a result, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the lawfulness of UT’s current admissions practices.

Unpublished decisions

  • AmGuard Insurance Co. v. Meisel, 22-20557, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Richman, J. (Richman, Graves, Wilson), insurance
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of insureds on insurer’s declaratory judgment suit arising from fire at insured’s property.
  • U.S. v. Esteves, 24-30336, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, King, Graves), criminal, Brady violation
    • Affirming conviction arising from armored truck robbery, upholding denial of motion for new trial on Brady grounds.
  • U.S. v. Reyna-Zapata, 24-40244, c/w U.S. v. Gonzalez-Barragan, 24-40245, c/w U.S. v. Martinez-Padilla, 24-40260, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Southwick), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming convictions of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence.
  • U.S. v. Flores, 24-40522, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Smith), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 156-month sentence for conspiracy to transport aliens in the United States.
  • U.S. v. Lopez-Quintana, 24-50040, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Williams, 24-50534, c/w 24-50538, c/w 24-50540, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Ramirez), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Perez-Rodriguez v. Bondi, 24-60402, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Perez’ application for asylum and withholding of removal, which listed her children as derivative beneficiaries, and Perez’ separate application for protection under the Convention Against Torture.