E.T. v. Paxton, No. 21-51083 (5th Cir. 2022)

In accordance with powers vested in him by the Texas Legislature, Governor Greg Abbott promulgated Executive Order GA-38 to unify the State’s response to COVID-19. Among other things, GA-38 prohibited school districts from imposing mask mandates. Some students sued. Then the district court permanently enjoined the Texas Attorney General from enforcing GA-38.
 
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss the suit without prejudice. The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not presented an injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III. To establish such an injury, plaintiffs must show they “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016). The court wrote that Plaintiffs haven’t carried that burden here because (1) the injury they’ve alleged is not a cognizable injury in fact, and (2) they may not relabel their injury as something it’s not.