Mi Familia Vota v. Ogg, 105 F.4th 313

Plaintiffs (civil rights groups, voters, and organizations) challenged several criminal provisions in Texas’s Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (S.B. 1), alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that local district attorneys—not the Attorney General—have prosecutorial authority over state election laws, prompting plaintiffs to sue Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg in her official capacity.
Ogg offered not to enforce the challenged provisions while litigation was pending; plaintiffs rejected the stipulation, arguing it was inadequate.
Ogg moved to dismiss the constitutional claims against her, asserting sovereign immunity; the district court denied the motion, finding she was not immune under Ex parte Young and that plaintiffs had standing.
Ogg appealed, raising the sovereign immunity and standing issues; the Fifth Circuit had to determine if it had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and whether sovereign immunity barred these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Appellate Jurisdiction	Collateral order doctrine doesn’t apply when immunity is partial (not for entire suit).	Denial of sovereign immunity for even some claims is immediately appealable.	Jurisdiction exists under the collateral order doctrine, even for partial immunity.
Sovereign Immunity (Ex parte Young)	Ogg is a proper defendant: she has specific enforcement authority and willingness under state law.	Plaintiffs fail to show Ogg has a specific duty, willingness, or meaningful connection to enforcement.	Ex parte Young does not apply; no sufficient enforcement connection; Ogg is immune from constitutional claims.
Demonstrated Willingness to Enforce	Offer not to enforce is limited; threat of enforcement persists; fear chills plaintiffs’ activities.	Stipulated non-enforcement shows unwillingness; no affirmative action or enforcement.	Stipulation negates demonstrated willingness; no evidence Ogg acted or threatened action.
Standing (re: statutory claims)	Plaintiffs argue standing based on organization/injury theories.	Ogg challenges standing generally; focuses arguments on associational standing/injury.	Not reached; left for district court on remand.

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits against state officials for prospective relief, if there’s a sufficient enforcement connection)
Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020) (guidance on Ex parte Young enforcement connection requirements)
City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 2019) (describes the requisite enforcement connection for Ex parte Young applicability)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity immediately appealable even if only some claims are covered)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (immunity from specific claims, not entire litigation, may be appealable)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts may not order state officials to comply with state law under Eleventh Amendment)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (threat of criminal prosecution can have a chilling effect relevant for Article III standing)