June Medical Svcs v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512

Background

Louisiana Act 620 requires physicians who perform abortions to have active admitting privileges within 30 miles of the facility. After Dobbs, the State sought relief from a permanent injunction of that statute via an emergency Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the injunction.
The State asked the district court to vacate the injunction immediately or within two days; the district court denied expedited relief and said it would rule after full briefing under normal deadlines.
The State filed an emergency motion for reconsideration asking for a next-day ruling; the district court again refused to grant expedited relief and clarified it had not denied the underlying motion on the merits.
The State appealed both district-court orders, arguing this court had interlocutory appeal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and alternatively sought mandamus relief.
The Fifth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s orders were docket-management/scheduling decisions (not substantive denials of injunctive relief) and thus not appealable under § 1292(a)(1); it also denied mandamus.
The Fifth Circuit directed the district court to expeditiously consider any fully briefed merits submissions and enter an appropriate order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) over the district court’s denials of expedited relief	The district court’s orders effectively continue/refuse to dissolve the injunction and are therefore immediately appealable	The orders were docket-management/scheduling decisions that did not decide the merits and thus are not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)	Held: No jurisdiction — orders were scheduling/administrative, not substantive denials of injunctive relief
Whether the orders had the “practical effect” of refusing to dissolve the injunction, making them appealable	The practical effect of delaying relief perpetuates irreparable harm and warrants immediate appeal	The orders did not impact the merits and merely postponed decision until full briefing; any practical effect does not transform them into appealable injunction orders	Held: No — the orders did not directly decide the merits or have the requisite practical effect
Whether mandamus relief was warranted to compel immediate vacatur of the injunction	Mandamus appropriate because district court’s refusal to act immediately was an abuse of discretion causing irreparable harm	Mandamus is extraordinary; district court has broad docket-management discretion and did not clearly usurp power or abuse discretion	Held: Denied — State did not show exceptional circumstances or abuse of discretion
Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing expedited relief	Expedited consideration required by changed law (Dobbs) and delay is unreasonable	District court reasonably exercised inherent authority to manage its docket and required full briefing on complex issues	Held: No abuse of discretion; denial of expedited relief was within district court’s authority

Key Cases Cited

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (orders relating only to conduct of litigation are not appealable under § 1292(a)(1))
Switzerland Cheese Ass’n v. E. Horne’s Mkt., Inc., 385 U.S. 23 (pretrial procedural orders are not interlocutory within § 1292(a)(1))
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Goodrich Corp., 410 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2005) (docket-management orders lack interlocutory appealability)
Shanks v. City of Dallas, 752 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1981) (distinguishes orders disposing on merits from pretrial/scheduling orders)
E.E.O.C. v. Kerrville Bus Co., 925 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1991) (additional indicia required to treat an order as a denial of injunctive relief)
In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2017) (mandamus requires exceptional circumstances; high standard)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 988 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2021) (district courts have broad discretion to manage their dockets)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (changed governing law that prompted State’s emergency motion)