Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Jackson v. Tarrant County, 25-11055, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Willett, J. (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan) (oral argument), election law
  • Affirming denial of preliminary injunction on plaintiff voters’ suit challenging as racially discriminatory a county commission’s redrawing of county precinct lines.
  • The Fifth Circuit began by reaffirming that states and their political subdivisions hold primary constitutional authority to regulate elections, including the drawing of district lines, though that power is limited by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ prohibitions on racial discrimination. Judicial intervention in redistricting, the court emphasized, must remain restrained and deferential. This case involved Tarrant County, Texas, which redrew its county commissioner precincts mid-cycle in 2025. The plaintiffs—voters reassigned to new districts—claimed that the redistricting discriminated against minorities and Democratic voters. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that neither the facts nor the law supported their challenge.
  • Tarrant County’s Commissioners Court, composed of four precinct-elected commissioners and a countywide judge, is constitutionally empowered to draw precinct boundaries “from time to time.” After the 2020 census, the County adopted criteria for redistricting but ultimately voted to retain its 2010 map, finding population deviations within the acceptable 10% one-person-one-vote threshold. In 2025, however, a new majority contracted with the Public Interest Law Foundation to conduct a mid-cycle redistricting, bypassing previous procedural safeguards. The new “Map 7,” approved by a 3–2 vote, shifted the balance from two Democratic and two Republican districts to three Republican and one Democratic district, and reduced majority-minority districts from two to one. Roughly 10% of voters—disproportionately Democratic, Black, and Latino—were moved to precincts not scheduled to vote again until 2028.
  • The plaintiffs argued that Map 7 (1) constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) reflected intentional racial discrimination under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; and (3) unlawfully disenfranchised voters by delaying their opportunity to vote. The panel rejected each argument. First, it held that the plaintiffs’ “viewpoint discrimination” claim was simply a partisan-gerrymandering challenge foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which declared such disputes nonjusticiable political questions. The court found no meaningful difference between “vote dilution” and “vote postponement” in this context: both stem from partisan redistricting choices committed to the political process rather than the judiciary.
  • Turning to the race-discrimination claim, the Fifth Circuit distinguished between Shaw v. Reno “racial-predominance” claims and Arlington Heights intentional-discrimination claims, concluding that plaintiffs had brought only the latter. Under Arlington Heights, courts assess discriminatory purpose using factors such as impact, historical background, procedural deviations, and decisionmakers’ statements. Reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error, the panel upheld its conclusion that the Commissioners Court was not motivated by race. It found County Judge Tim O’Hare’s televised remarks criticizing Democrats and appealing to “people of all races” insufficient to prove racial animus, particularly given the lack of contextual evidence and the strong correlation between race and partisanship in Tarrant County. The procedural irregularities and disparate racial effects of Map 7 were likewise better explained by partisanship than racial motive.
  • The court next rejected the plaintiffs’ “vote postponement” argument, reaffirming that the Constitution protects the right to vote, not the right to vote on a fixed schedule. Relying on the Supreme Court’s summary affirmance in Pate v. El Paso County, it held that shifting voters between staggered precincts—thereby delaying their next election opportunity—does not constitute disenfranchisement. The panel dismissed attempts to frame the claim under the Anderson–Burdick balancing test, which governs restrictions on the right to vote, finding it inapplicable to redistricting decisions and cautioning that such an approach would improperly invite judicial supervision of routine partisan map-drawing.
  • Finally, applying rational-basis review, the court found ample conceivable justifications for Tarrant County’s mid-cycle redistricting, including concerns about the prior map’s legality and ordinary political considerations. Even if partisan advantage motivated the Commissioners Court, such intent does not render the map unconstitutional absent proof of racial discrimination or other prohibited conduct. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on any claim, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. It declined to address the remaining injunction factors or whether proximity to the 2026 elections would independently bar judicial relief.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Valencia, 24-20232, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.

• Arnold v. 1600 West Loop South, L.L.C., 25-20261, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), § 1981, § 1983
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims arising from her arrest for allegedly impersonating a district attorney.

• U.S. v. Garner, 25-30206, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming constitutionality of conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• Ware v. Irving Place Associates, L.P., 25-30252, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), medical malpractice, breach of contract
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims regarding treatment received by his mother at a nursing home facility.

• U.S. v. Gutierrez, 24-40721, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 210-month sentence and conviction of conspiracy to import 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.