State of Texas v. EEOC, et al, No. 14-10949 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 27, 2016.
Download PDF
Case: 14-10949 Document: 00513690843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-10949 FILED September 23, 2016 STATE OF TEXAS, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; JENNY R. YANG, in her official capacity as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion 06/27/16, 5th Cir., _____ F.3d ______) Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: As we noted in our opinion, Texas v. EEOC, No. 14-10949, 2016 WL 3524242, at *7 (5th Cir. June 27, 2016), shortly before the opinion’s issuance the Supreme Court decided U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016), which held in the context of the Clean Water Act that a jurisdictional determination (“JD”) is a final agency action that is subject to Case: 14-10949 Document: 00513690843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 No. 14-10949 judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. at 1816. In Belle Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 761 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2014), also cited in our opinion, our court had held that the JD in that case was not a final decision. Belle Co. petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. In the light of its opinion in Hawkes, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded Belle Co. to our court. 136 S. Ct. 2427 (2016) (mem.). The panel then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hawkes. Belle Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 13-30262, 2016 WL 4073301, at *1 (5th Cir. July 29, 2016). Both Belle Co. and the instant case relate closely to the issue that the Supreme Court decided in Hawkes. Given this similarity, and given that the district court has not had the opportunity to apply Hawkes to the facts of this case, we conclude that the importance of the issue and the interest of uniformity of our precedent require that we, like the Belle Co. panel, remand this case for further consideration in the light of Hawkes. We recognize that Hawkes may or may not affect other issues raised in this appeal, and we leave it to the district court in the first instance to reconsider this case, and its opinion, in its entirety and to address the implications of Hawkes for this case. Accordingly, we WITHDRAW our prior opinion, VACATE the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint, and REMAND this case to the district court for such further proceedings as, in its discretion, are required. PETITION GRANTED; OPINION WITHDRAWN; JUDGMENT VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
