88 F.4th 582
5th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiffs, Travis County voters, sued several county officials in Texas state court, alleging improper use of uncertified electronic voting systems during the November 2020 general election.
- Plaintiffs claimed violations of state and federal law and sought injunctive and declaratory relief, including prohibiting electronic voting and requiring the use of paper ballots.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss on the grounds of lack of standing.
- The district court dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, but did not remand to state court.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the case should have been remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) instead of dismissed.
- The Fifth Circuit agreed with the finding of no standing but held that remand to state court was required under § 1447(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Vote invalidation) | Votes invalidated by uncertified system, rights violated | Injury is generalized, not concrete or particularized | No standing; injury not concrete or redressable |
| Standing (Personal information disclosure) | Voting system resulted in unlawful disclosure of personal info | Alleged injury is speculative, not specific or imminent | No standing; injury too speculative |
| Remedy for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction | District court should have remanded to state court | Mixed claims prevent full remand; federal claims cannot be remanded | Remand required; § 1447(c) mandates remand of whole case, not dismissal |
| Federal claims in state court | State court can hear claims if no federal jurisdiction | State court cannot hear federal claims lacking Article III standing | State courts can adjudicate federal claims without Article III standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (construing minimum Article III standing requirements)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (elaborating on injury requirements for Article III standing)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (generalized grievances about government conduct do not confer standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (standing is required for federal subject matter jurisdiction)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (past harm cannot support forward-looking injunctive relief without likely future harm)