LA Real Estate Appraiser Board v. FTC, 976 F.3d 597

The Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board (Board) is a state agency that licenses/regulates appraisers and adopted Rule 31101 requiring appraisal management companies to pay rates "customary and reasonable" under state law tied to Dodd-Frank.
In 2017 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought administrative enforcement against the Board alleging Rule 31101 unlawfully restrained price competition in violation of the FTC Act; the Board asserted state‑action (Parker) immunity.
On April 10, 2018 the FTC Commission denied the Board’s motion and rejected its state‑action immunity defense; no final cease‑and‑desist order was issued immediately thereafter.
The Board first sought direct review in this Court (La. Real Estate Appraisers Bd. v. FTC) and the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; then sued in district court under the APA and obtained a stay of the FTC administrative proceedings.
The FTC appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Commission’s interlocutory order denying immunity was not reviewable in district court under 5 U.S.C. § 704 and/or the FTC Act’s judicial‑review scheme.
The Fifth Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction: the April 10 order was not final agency action under § 704 and the collateral‑order doctrine did not make it immediately reviewable, so the stay was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the Commission’s April 10, 2018 order under the APA (§ 704) despite the FTC Act	§ 704 permits non‑statutory review of final agency action; the April 10 order is reviewable	FTC Act and judicial‑review framework channel challenges to courts of appeals; regardless, the April 10 order is not final under § 704	Court: No jurisdiction—April 10 order is not final under § 704; district court lacked jurisdiction and must dismiss
Whether the collateral‑order doctrine renders the Commission’s denial of state‑action immunity "final" for § 704 purposes	The collateral‑order doctrine makes the denial immediately reviewable because it conclusively determines immunity	Denial is not separate from merits and is reviewable on appeal after final action; collateral‑order prongs (separateness and unreviewability) fail	Court: Collateral‑order doctrine does not apply; second and third prongs fail (issue not separate from merits; not effectively unreviewable)
Whether Bennett v. Spear finality test independently makes the April 10 order reviewable	The April 10 order marks consummation of decisionmaking and produces legal consequences (right to immunity)	The order does not itself impose adverse legal consequences absent a future adverse final order — it is contingent	Court: Bennett test not satisfied; order only affects rights contingently and is not final agency action

Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (foundational state‑action doctrine shielding state regulatory programs)
Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980) (two‑part test for private‑party state‑action immunity: clear articulation and active supervision)
Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 (1985) (municipalities need only clear articulation prong)
N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs v. F.T.C., 574 U.S. 494 (2015) (boards dominated by market participants require meaningful state active supervision)
Martin v. Memorial Hosp. at Gulfport, 86 F.3d 1391 (5th Cir. 1996) (denial of state‑action immunity by district court was treated as immediately appealable in that context)
Acoustic Sys., Inc. v. Wenger Corp., 207 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (limited Martin: private parties are not entitled to interlocutory collateral‑order appeals of state‑action denials)
La. Real Estate Appraisers Bd. v. F.T.C., 917 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2019) (this Court dismissed Board’s direct petition for lack of jurisdiction)
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Herman, 176 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 1999) (finality requirement for APA review analogous to § 1291 final‑decision rule)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two‑part test for "final agency action" under the APA)