41 F.4th 709
5th Cir.2022Background
- Texas Governor issued Executive Order GA-38 prohibiting governmental entities, including school districts, from imposing mask mandates; GA-38 has "the force and effect of law."
- Seven children with serious disabilities (and their parents) sued, alleging GA-38 prevented school districts from providing mask-based reasonable accommodations required by Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Plaintiffs amended complaints and ultimately proceeded to bench trial against Texas Attorney General Paxton (the Governor was dropped); the district court entered a permanent injunction barring the Attorney General from enforcing GA-38 as applied to school districts and ruled GA-38 violated or was preempted by the ADA, Section 504, and the ARP Act.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit granted an emergency stay and reviewed Article III jurisdiction first. The panel held plaintiffs lacked standing (injury, traceability, redressability) and vacated the injunction, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.
- Key factual context: at trial five of the seven plaintiffs’ schools retained mask mandates despite GA-38 and enforcement threats; two schools were mask-optional. The AG had sent enforcement letters and filed suits against some districts, but many districts did not capitulate at trial time (later many mandates were dropped).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury (Article III — imminence/concreteness) | Plaintiffs: GA-38 increases their risk of contracting COVID-19 and denies meaningful, equal access to in-person schooling without mask mandates (disability discrimination). | Paxton: Alleged harms are speculative increased-risk or "fear of COVID-19" claims and not certainly impending; plaintiffs prefer a particular accommodation (masks) but show no concrete legally protected deprivation. | Held: No cognizable Article III injury. Increased-risk claims are speculative; plaintiffs failed to show denial of the legally protected interest (reasonable access) because schools offer other mitigation options and plaintiffs presented no evidence they requested individualized accommodations. |
| Traceability (causation) | Plaintiffs: Paxton’s aggressive enforcement and litigation caused ISDs to lift mandates; at least one ISD would reinstate masks if Paxton were enjoined. | Paxton: Any change in district masking resulted from independent district choices; GA-38 regulates districts, not plaintiffs, so causation is indirect and speculative. | Held: Not traceable. Plaintiffs failed to show AG enforcement caused most districts to drop mandates; many districts kept mandates despite threats, so causal chain to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries is broken. |
| Redressability | Plaintiffs: An injunction barring Paxton’s enforcement would allow school districts to reinstate mask mandates and thus remedy the injury; at least one ISD provided affidavit saying it would reinstate masks if enforcement stopped. | Paxton: Even if AG enjoined, districts might still refuse; plaintiffs sued the AG not the districts, so relief against AG cannot reliably compel third-party districts to act. | Held: Not redressable. Relief against the AG would not guarantee reinstatement of mandates; because plaintiffs did not sue districts, redress depends on independent third parties and is speculative. |
| Merits (ADA/§504/preemption) — as argued and treated below | Plaintiffs: GA-38 prevents school districts from providing a mask-based reasonable modification, violating Title II/§504; ADA/§504 preempt GA-38 where they conflict. | Paxton: GA-38 is lawful state policy; districts can choose other reasonable accommodations; plaintiffs cannot compel a particular accommodation. | Held: Fifth Circuit did not reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction. The district court had ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on merits, and a dissent would have upheld a narrower injunction limited to plaintiffs’ districts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Shrimpers & Fishermen of RGV v. Tex. Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 968 F.3d 419 (5th Cir.) (rejecting probabilistic standing based on non-particularized increased risk)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 937 F.3d 533 (5th Cir.) (increased-risk claims generally fail imminence requirement)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (standing cannot rest on speculative fears of future harm)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (imminence requirement for threatened injury)
- Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (courts may rely on predictable effect of government action on third parties for standing in some contexts)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. en banc) (injury not redressable where relief against officials would not control third-party actors)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (plaintiffs invoking federal jurisdiction bear burden to demonstrate standing)