E.T. v. Paxton, 19 F.4th 760

Background

Governor Abbott issued Executive Order GA-38 on July 29, 2021, prohibiting governmental entities (including school districts) from imposing mask mandates.
Seven Texas public-school students with disabilities (through their parents) sued on August 17, 2021, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), arguing GA-38 deprives them of meaningful access to in-person education.
The district court, after a bench trial, found plaintiffs had standing, held GA-38 violated and was preempted by the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ARPA, and entered a permanent statewide injunction barring the Attorney General from enforcing GA-38 against public schools.
Texas Attorney General Kenneth Paxton appealed and moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal.
The Fifth Circuit granted the stay, concluding Paxton made a strong showing of likelihood to succeed on the merits (raising standing, IDEA-exhaustion, failure-to-accommodate, and preemption errors), that the State would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, that maintaining the status quo would not substantially injure plaintiffs, and that the public interest favors a stay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing (Article III injury)	GA-38’s ban on local mask mandates increases Plaintiffs’ COVID risk and thus deprives them of meaningful in-person education.	Alleged injury is speculative; other accommodations exist; redress is uncertain.	Plaintiffs likely lack standing: injury is speculative/increased-risk and redressability is doubtful.
IDEA administrative exhaustion	Plaintiffs’ ADA/Rehab claims are direct civil rights claims; exhaustion is not required.	IDEA requires exhaustion for claims seeking relief also available under IDEA.	Court likely erred: IDEA exhaustion likely required under Fry and plaintiffs did not exhaust.
Prima facie ADA/Rehab claim (reasonable accommodation)	Mask mandates are necessary accommodations to permit safe in-person learning.	Plaintiffs failed to request accommodations; other reasonable measures exist (vaccination, distancing, plexiglass, voluntary masking).	Plaintiffs likely failed to state prima facie ADA/Rehab claims; no record of requested reasonable accommodations and mask mandates not shown to be necessary/obvious.
Federal preemption (ADA/Rehab/ARPA)	Federal law (ADA/Rehab/ARPA/DOE guidance) preempts GA-38 and requires local masking policies.	GA-38 does not make compliance with federal law physically impossible nor frustrate federal purposes; ARPA does not mandate masking.	District court likely erred: GA-38 not clearly preempted by ADA/Rehab or ARPA given available alternative accommodations and ARPA’s requirements.
Scope of injunction	Statewide injunction needed to protect all similarly situated disabled students.	Relief should be narrow and individualized.	The injunction was likely overbroad; relief could be limited to plaintiffs or individualized accommodations.

Key Cases Cited

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and framework).
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (concrete injury requirement for standing).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements).
Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (when IDEA exhaustion applies).
Shrimpers & Fishermen of RGV v. Tex. Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 968 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2020) (increased-risk claims and imminence).
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (limits on increased-risk standing).
Veasey v. Abbott, 870 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2017) (state enforcement interest and irreparable harm when laws are enjoined).
Barber v. Bryant, 833 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2016) (stay as an intrusion into ordinary judicial review).
Jenkins v. Cleco Power, 487 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff’s burden to request reasonable accommodation).
Scott v. Schedler, 826 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (injunctions must be narrowly tailored).