September 30, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • W.M.M. v. Trump, 25-10534, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • en banc (vote to grant en banc reh’g); Ho, J., concurring in grant of rehearing en banc; Higginson, J., dissenting from grant of rehearing en banc; en banc, immigration, due process, Alien Enemies Act, habeas corpus
    • On September 2, the three-judge panel (Southwick, J., writing for the court; Ramirez, J., dissenting in part; and Oldham, J., dissenting), on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of temporary restraining order halting deportation of petitioners under the Alien Enemies Act, in 185 total pages of opinions granted preliminary injunction blocking removal of petitioners, while leaving in place the government’s updated notice of removal, and remanded for further proceedings. So it is without surprise that a majority of the active-status judges voted to rehear the case en banc, vacating the 185 pages of the panel’s opinions.
    • What is surprising is the highly unusual move of separate concurring and dissenting opinions from the grant of the petition for en banc rehearing. As Judge Higginson notes at the beginning of his dissent from the grant of en banc rehearing, “It is common when there are separate opinions at the time that the court denies rehearing en banc that other judges will join those opinions. Here, rehearing en banc has been granted. In order to avoid disclosing even part of the vote for that decision (beyond my own), no judges are shown as being in agreement with this opinion.”
    • Judge Ho, ostensibly in reaction to Judge Higginson’s dissent, filed a brief concurrence in the grant of rehearing: “Our colleague opposes rehearing en banc on grounds of delay. But the burden of any delay falls on the Government. And the Government asked for rehearing en banc, rather than seek certiorari in the Supreme Court. Perhaps we could have minimized delay by declaring last year in United States v. Abbott, 110 F.4th 700 (5th Cir. 2024), that the Judiciary has no business telling the Executive that it can’t treat incursions of illegal aliens as an invasion. But we are where we are.”
    • In his dissenting opinion from the grant of rehearing, Judge Higginson argues against further delay through en banc rehearing, stressing that only the Supreme Court can provide a definitive resolution and that postponement would burden other circuits with pending related cases. Citing the statutory allowance for certiorari before judgment, Judge Higginson underscores the urgent national interest in prompt, final review rather than prolonged intermediate litigation.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Myers, 25-10193, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Dickerson, 25-10225, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Picou v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc., 25-30149, c/w Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc., 25-30200, appeals from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Haynes, Ramirez), attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming district court’s judgment that defendant is entitles to attorneys’ fees, and remanding to district court for determination of the amount.
  • Sanusi v. U.S., 25-40323, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho), forfeiture, criminal
    • Affirming dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff federal inmate’s claim for return of seized items, for failure to prosecute the suit and to comply with court orders.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez, 24-40660, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing, guilty plea
    • Affirming the sufficiency of the factual basis for guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and affirming concurrent 340- and 240-month sentences.
  • U.S. v. Loza-Cabrera, 25-50036, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Dominguez, 25-50162, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Clement, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on revocation of supervised release from original conviction for conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud.