Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10949/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10949-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10949

STATE OF TEXAS, 

 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 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10949 Document: 00513690843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2016
No. 14-10949

2

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.

 Case: 14-10949 Document: 00513690843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2016