Court Opinion

ID: 9556792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:00:51.608063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:42.630212
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20459         Document: 00516863278            Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                  United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                 August 18, 2023
                                       No. 22-20459
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________
                                                                                       Clerk

   The Satanic Temple, Incorporated,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Texas Health and Human Service Commission;
   Cecile Young,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:21-CV-387
                      ______________________________
   Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:
          The Satanic Temple, which describes itself as a “nontheistic religion
   whose membership openly defies the authority of God and the Church,” and
   an anonymous member thereof sued the Texas Health and Human Services
   Commission (“THHSC”), its Executive Commissioner (currently Cecile
   Young), and the Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Inc., seeking injunc-
   tive and declaratory relief against several Texas abortion laws. 1

          _____________________
          1
              After successive amended complaints, only Cecile Young remains as a defendant,
Case: 22-20459           Document: 00516863278               Page: 2       Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                            No. 22-20459

           Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a
   preliminary injunction against Young; the district court denied the motion.
   The Satanic Temple (but not its anonymous member) appealed.
           While the appeal was pending, the litigation continued apace in dis-
   trict court. Defendants 2 moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 3 and for
   failure to state a claim. 4 The district court granted the motion and dismissed
   the suit without prejudice but without leave to replead.
           To settle any doubt: The district court had jurisdiction to proceed on
   the merits of the case. An appeal from a grant or denial of a preliminary
   injunction does not inherently divest the district court of jurisdiction or
   otherwise restrain it from taking other steps in the litigation. 5 The district
   court therefore had the power to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims despite the pen-
   dent appeal.
           But given the dismissal, we also must assure ourselves of jurisdiction. 6

           _____________________
   sued in her official capacity.
           2
               THHSC apparently (and mistakenly) thought it was still a party to the suit.
           3
               See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
           4
               See id. 12(b)(6).
           5
             Ry. Lab. Execs.’ Ass’n v. City of Galveston ex rel. The Bd. of Trs. of the Galveston
   Wharves, 898 F.2d 481, 481 (5th Cir. 1990); 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
   R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2962, Westlaw (database
   updated Apr. 2023) (“An appeal from the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction does
   not divest the trial court of jurisdiction or prevent it from taking other steps in the litigation
   while the appeal is pending. . . . The only restriction on the trial court’s power occurs if the
   appellate court enters an order staying the lower court until the appeal has been
   completed.”).
           6
             Elldakli v. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 670 (5th Cir. 2023) (“This court has a contin-
   uing obligation to assure itself of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary.” (quoting
   Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Schertz, 969 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (en banc))).

                                                   2
Case: 22-20459           Document: 00516863278              Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                            No. 22-20459

   The courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from certain interlocu-
   tory orders, including orders refusing injunctions. 7 Such jurisdiction, how-
   ever, may be lost, as here. 8 “A denial of permanent relief moots the appeal
   from a denial of preliminary relief.” 9 That proposition is consistent with the
   function of preliminary relief, which is “to preserve the status quo during the
   pendency of trial court proceedings”—a function that loses vitality when
   there are no longer trial court proceedings. 10
           Plaintiffs have some recourse, however. “When a district court enters
   a final judgment in a case, interlocutory orders rendered in the case typically
   merge with the judgment for purposes of appellate review.” 11 Plaintiffs have

           _____________________
           7
             28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1). Although we now lack jurisdiction over the entire appeal,
   we were always unable to review the denial of the TRO. Interlocutory orders “granting,
   continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify
   injunctions” are immediately appealable. Id. But TROs are not injunctions for § 1292 pur-
   poses and are therefore not subject to review on interlocutory appeal. Jones v. Tex. Dep’t
   of Crim. Just., 880 F.3d 756, 758 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citing Faulder v. Johnson,
   178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999)); see also In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990)
   (collecting intra-circuit and out-of-circuit cases and explaining that concerns about moot-
   ness are the likely basis for the rule prohibiting appeals of TRO decisions); see also
   11A Wright & Miller, supra note 5, § 2962 (“[I]t generally has been held that tem-
   porary restraining orders are not [appealable].”). The denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a
   TRO was therefore not appealable ab initio.
           8
                Koppula v. Jaddou, 72 F.4th 83, 84 (5th Cir. 2023).
           9
                Id.
           10
              Id. There are rare exceptions, such as when a preliminary injunction issues and
   affects independent and separate rights from any relief provided by a particular final judg-
   ment. See, e.g., Stacey G. ex rel. William & Jane G. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 695 F.2d
   949, 955 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that an appeal of a preliminary injunction was not moot
   because “the final judgment did not in terms resolve the issue” raised on appeal, i.e.,
   “whether preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate to require [the defendant] to pay
   the entire interim costs of [the plaintiff’s] private schooling prior to the final judgment”).
   This case presents no such exception.
           11
             Shannon v. Gen. Elec. Co., 186 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 1999) (collecting authori-
   ties); Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc., 991 F.3d 339, 343 (1st Cir. 2021) (“[U]pon entry of the

                                                   3
Case: 22-20459         Document: 00516863278                Page: 4       Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                           No. 22-20459

   already appealed the dismissal of their claims; that appeal is docketed as
   No. 23-20329. To the extent that plaintiffs want to litigate further any issues
   that were raised in the preliminary injunction motion and remain live, they
   may do so in their appeal from the district court’s final judgment. 12
           This appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

           _____________________
   judgment of dismissal of [the] suit, the denial . . . of the first preliminary injunction
   merge[s] with the . . . final judgment.”).
           12
              See Scheff v. Banks, No. 22-2439-CV, 2023 WL 4715174, at *2–3 (2d Cir. July 25,
   2023) (summary order); see also 15A Wright & Miller, supra note 5, § 3905.1 (“[T]he
   general rule [is] that an appeal from final judgment opens the record and permits review of
   all rulings that led up to the judgment.”); 11A id. § 2962 (“Upon an appeal from the final
   decree every interlocutory order affecting the rights of the parties is subject to review in the
   appellate court.”).

                                                  4