14 F.4th 366
5th Cir.2021Background
- A 1992 federal consent decree (the Chisom decree) resolved a VRA suit challenging Louisiana’s at-large First Supreme Court District by creating a majority‑Black single‑member Orleans Parish district (today’s District 7) and retaining the Eastern District of Louisiana’s jurisdiction "until the complete implementation of the final remedy."
- Plaintiffs (LA State Conference of the NAACP and two East Baton Rouge residents) sued in 2019 in the Middle District under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging Louisiana’s current map dilutes Black votes and that a second majority‑Black district can be drawn in District 5.
- Louisiana moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing the Chisom decree vests exclusive jurisdiction over all seven Supreme Court districts in the Eastern District and thus precludes the Middle District from deciding challenges to District 5.
- The Middle District denied dismissal, holding the Chisom decree concerned only the Orleans Parish remedy (District 7) and did not oust its jurisdiction; it alternatively held plaintiffs could collaterally attack the decree under Martin v. Wilks, and certified the interlocutory question for appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it construed the decree as limited to the Orleans Parish remedy and held—without deciding whether the decree remains in force—that even if it does, it does not strip the Middle District of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ challenge to District 5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Chisom consent decree deprives the Middle District of subject‑matter jurisdiction over a Section 2 challenge to District 5 | The Chisom decree addresses only District 7; this suit concerns District 5 and is outside the decree | The decree governs all seven districts and vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Eastern District, so Middle District lacks jurisdiction | Held: Decree is limited to the Orleans Parish remedy (District 7); Middle District retains jurisdiction over District 5 challenge |
| Whether non‑parties may bring a separate action challenging the decree (collateral attack) | Plaintiffs may collateral‑attack the decree (Martin v. Wilks supports) | Louisiana contends such challenges are barred or inappropriate | Not decided on appeal; district court held they may, but Fifth Circuit affirmed on narrower ground and did not reach this issue |
| Whether the Chisom decree remains in force and therefore continues to vest jurisdiction in the Eastern District | Plaintiffs: irrelevant to jurisdiction over District 5; challenge can proceed | Louisiana: decree never relinquished; it remains binding and confers ongoing Eastern District control | Court assumed arguendo decree might persist but declined to decide its continued force; even if extant, it does not cover District 5 |
| Whether a remedial order for District 5 would inevitably conflict with the Chisom decree and thus bar the suit | Plaintiffs: any remedy can be fashioned without unlawful conflict | Louisiana: a remedy would conflict with Chisom, forcing impossible compliance with two federal orders | Held: speculative conflict does not divest subject‑matter jurisdiction; comity concerns are distinct and not jurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (originating Supreme Court VRA decision that led to the Chisom litigation and decree)
- Chisom v. Jindal, 890 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. La. 2012) (Eastern District interpreted the Chisom decree and retained jurisdiction to resolve Justice Johnson's tenure)
- Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (non‑parties may, in some circumstances, bring separate actions challenging consent decrees)
- Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 498 U.S. 237 (consent decrees are not intended to operate in perpetuity)
- Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (federal decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation)
- Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (limits on consent decrees and comment on interpreting decrees under ordinary principles)
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (institutional reform injunctions raise federalism concerns and must be carefully confined)
- Guajardo v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 363 F.3d 392 (5th Cir.) (consent decrees not intended to last indefinitely)
- Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Development, 912 F.2d 819 (5th Cir.) (decree interpretation reviewed de novo)
- United States ex rel. Simoneaux v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 843 F.3d 1033 (5th Cir.) (certified orders reviewed de novo)
- Laufer v. Mann Hospitality, 996 F.3d 269 (5th Cir.) (subject‑matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321 (Supreme Court discussion of VRA Section 2 framework)