February 3, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Airlines for America v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 24-60231, c/w Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 24-60373, petitions for review of order of DOT
    • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, Douglas, Ramirez) (oral argument), Haynes, J., concurring (joined by Southwick and Douglas); administrative law, en banc
    • In the first of the en banc opinions released from the January 2026 en banc sitting, exactly as we predicted following argument (“the Court overwhelmingly will vacate on the APA basis”), the en banc Court issues a rare en banc per curiam, vacating the DOT rule requiring up-front disclosure of certain airline fees, on finding that DOT failed (which DOT’s counsel conceded at argument) to fully comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. The Court did not reach the larger issues about statutory authority. “Apart from the notice-and-comment issue, questions have also been raised about other defects in the Rule. But in light of DOT’s agreement to the remedy of vacatur—and the agency’s stated intent to redesign or rescind the Rule—we pretermit those issues as premature.”
    • Judge Haynes, writing for the original panel and joined by her panel-mates (Judges Southwick and Douglas), entered a brief concurrence noting the effect of the changing Administrations on the en banc per curiam decision’s choice to leave the larger questions unaddressed: “This case has evolved into a different arena since a year ago when we issued the panel opinion that I wrote. Most importantly, the Department of Transportation is an agency under a different president and with a different approach and thoughts than it was at the time of the rule that the panel opinion addressed. The Department assured the court it is creating a new proposed rule, and it agreed that we could vacate the rule that was what the panel addressed. Accordingly, we concur.”

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Salinas, 25-10335, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 36-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez, 25-10729, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Lewis v. Sinclair, 25-10913, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Lopez-Soria, 24-11077, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Duncan, J. (Dennis, Graves, Duncan) (oral argument), Dennis, J., dissenting; criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 86-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
    • Judge Dennis dissented and would vacate and remand for resentencing, as “[t]he district court’s reliance on false information ‘loomed large’ at sentencing, as it repeatedly cited the incorrect number of removals alongside a misstatement of Lopez-Soria’s criminal history.”
  • DiBassie v. Reeves, 25-20170, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Engelhardt, Wilson) (oral argument withdrawn), bankruptcy
    • Affirming non-dischargeable judgment on embezzlement adversary claim.
  • U.S. v. Ignont, 24-30390, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Engelhardt, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 240-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.
  • Ellis-Erkkila v. Manske, 25-50483, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), § 1983
    • Dismissing as untimely appeal from dismissal of federal prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Spiva, 25-60291, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • Bermudes-Osorto v. Bondi, 24-60645, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 2023 motion to reopen his proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order.