Court Opinion

ID: 9908895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 01:00:46.884024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:35.570128
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20491     Document: 00516996696         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/11/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                ____________                                    FILED
                                                                        December 11, 2023
                                 No. 22-20491                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                    Clerk

   Joe Richard Pool, III; Trenton Donn Pool;
   Accelevate2020, L.L.C.; Liberty Initiative Fund; Paul
   Jacob,

                                                           Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                       versus

   City of Houston; Anna Russell, in her official capacity as the City
   Secretary of the City of Houston; Pat J. Daniel, In her official capacity as
   the Secretary of the City of Houston,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CV-2236
                  ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge,
          The district court entered a declaratory judgment that held
   unconstitutional certain voter-registration provisions in the Houston City
   Charter. Plaintiffs appeal the wording of that judgment. We hold no case or
   controversy exists. So we vacate the judgment and remand with instructions
   to dismiss the suit without prejudice.
Case: 22-20491      Document: 00516996696             Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/11/2023

                                       No. 22-20491

          “Jurisdiction is always first.” Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 310 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). It is well settled that, where the parties agree
   on a constitutional question, there is no adversity and hence no Article III
   case or controversy. See, e.g., Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402
   U.S. 47, 47–48 (1971) (considering “the anomaly that both litigants desire
   precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is
   constitutional,” and holding “[t]here is, therefore, no case or controversy
   within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution”); Muskrat v. United States,
   219 U.S. 346, 361–62 (1911); Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. 251, 255 (1850); Bullard
   v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 1020, 1023 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted) (dismissing
   for lack of case or controversy when both parties “affirmatively desire the
   same result”); see also R. Fallon, J. Manning, D. Meltzer & D.
   Shapiro, Hart & Wechsler’s Federal Courts And The
   Federal System 94–101 (7th ed. 2015) (collecting cases on adversariness
   requirement).
          Here, “all parties have agreed from the beginning of this case that
   Houston’s voter registration provisions governing circulators” are
   unconstitutional. Red Br. 7. The City also agreed that it “would and could
   not enforce the provisions.” Id. at 8. The City has repeatedly and consistently
   emphasized its agreement with the plaintiffs throughout this suit. ROA.441,
   980–81. Such faux disputes do not belong in federal court. See Moore, 402
   U.S. at 47–48; Bullard, 708 F.2d at 1023.
                                   *        *         *
          The district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the suit is
   REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS the case without prejudice.
   See, e.g., Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe of La., 79 F.4th 444, 449 (5th Cir. 2023)
   (“[I]t’s precisely because the jurisdiction-less court cannot reach the merits
   that it also cannot issue with-prejudice dismissals that would carry res judicata

                                                2
Case: 22-20491     Document: 00516996696          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/11/2023

                                   No. 22-20491

   effect. So we’ve repeatedly insisted that a jurisdictional dismissal must be
   without prejudice to refiling in a forum of competent jurisdiction.”)
   (quotation omitted; emphasis in original).

                                            3