83 F.4th 300
5th Cir.2023Background
- In June 2022 the district court preliminarily enjoined Louisiana’s congressional map under Section 2, concluding an additional majority-Black district was required and ordering the Legislature to act within five legislative days.
- The State appealed; the district remedial hearing was postponed by a Supreme Court stay and the case was later remanded when that stay was vacated.
- The Fifth Circuit set expedited merits briefing and scheduled oral argument for Oct. 6, 2023, but the district court nonetheless set an October 3–5, 2023 remedial hearing to consider a court-ordered map.
- Louisiana (Landry/Ardoin) sought mandamus to vacate the remedial hearing and to require the district court to allow the Legislature first opportunity to enact a remedial plan or to proceed to a merits trial.
- A Fifth Circuit panel granted partial mandamus: it vacated the October remedial-hearing order, reasoning the district court abused its discretion by rushing to impose a court-ordered map without first affording the Legislature a reasonable opportunity and that mandamus was appropriate because ordinary appeal would not avoid the procedural and practical harms.
- Judge Ho concurred (emphasizing the extraordinary stakes and legislative-first principle); Judge Higginson dissented (arguing mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and appeal sufficed given the procedural history).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may be used to vacate the district court's remedial-hearing schedule | Landry: ordinary appeal is inadequate; mandamus needed because hearing would force a court-ordered map before merits are finally decided | Plaintiffs: the State is an appellant and may appeal any remedial order later; mandamus is not a substitute for appeal | Court: Granted partial mandamus — vacated the October remedial hearing because appeal would not avert the procedural chaos and harm identified |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by proceeding toward a court-ordered map while appeal on the merits was pending | Landry: district court rushed to impose its own map with insufficient time for state to prepare and without giving Legislature first opportunity | Plaintiffs: district court had discretion and ample notice since the hearing had been scheduled earlier; state had chances to seek relief | Court: District court abused its discretion — courts should ordinarily allow the responsible legislative body the first opportunity to craft a remedial plan |
| Whether the State had an adequate alternative remedy (i.e., ordinary appeal) | Landry: ordinary appeal would create overlapping, two-track litigation and likely not prevent confusion before 2024 elections | Plaintiffs: State already is an appellant and can pursue relief on appeal; mandamus unnecessary | Court: Found no adequate remedy by appeal for the scheduling issue and accepted mandamus as appropriate in these circumstances |
| Whether mandamus prerequisites (clear and indisputable right) are satisfied | Landry: clear right because longstanding Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedents require giving legislatures first opportunity | Plaintiffs: the showing for mandamus is high and the district court’s scheduling was within its docket authority | Court: Concluded the right was sufficiently clear and that the district court’s scheduling produced a patently erroneous result justifying partial mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (establishing that reapportionment is primarily a legislative task)
- Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (federal courts should, when practicable, afford legislatures opportunity to adopt remedial plans)
- Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (state legislatures best situated to reconcile state policies in reapportionment)
- Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (judicial relief appropriate only after legislature has had adequate opportunity to reapportion)
- Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus prerequisites articulated)
- In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (Fifth Circuit standard for mandamus relief)
- Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364 (Fifth Circuit admonition that courts should give government bodies reasonable opportunity to propose remedial plans)
- Rodriguez v. Bexar County, 385 F.3d 853 (district courts should use caution before invalidating election results or imposing court-drawn plans)
- Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186 (responsible state authorities must be given first opportunity to correct defects)
- United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420 (noting that district courts must offer governing bodies first pass at remedy in redistricting cases)