Overview of the Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has increasingly become one of the most influential appellate courts in the nation. Historically, it gained prominence in the civil rights era as a result of landmark decisions on desegregation and voting rights.

The court has, today, been reshaped by a new generation of judges, often described as the most conservative and textualist in the nation. Six of the 17 sitting judges were appointed by President Trump during his first term, among them Judge James C. Ho, who is reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for Supreme Court justices.

Landmark Cases from the 2024-25 Cycle

1. Petteway v. Galveston County - Narrowing the Voting Rights Act

In Petteway, the plaintiffs alleged that Black and Latino voters collectively had their political influence unjustifiably diluted through redistricting efforts in Galveston, Texas. However, in a 12-5 decision, the court held that, under the Voting Rights Acts, different ethnic groups cannot combine their numbers to bring vote dilution claims. Rather, the court held that each group would have to prove harm independent of one another.

This decision makes it more difficult to challenge redistricting plans in multi-ethnic regions, and the result is expected to significantly hinder Texas Democrats as they explore legal options following a Republican-led redistricting effort to gain four congressional seats.

2. SpaceX v. National Labor Relations Board - Weakening Federal Agencies

Just days ago, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which claimed the structure of the NLRB, namely its members’ insulation from presidential removal and the use of Administrative Law Judges, was unconstitutional.

Through this decision, the court legitimized a key cornerstone of modern conservatism: the movement against the so-called “administrative state". Even further, this decision will likely allow President Trump to continue terminating officials at independent agencies as he has done with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3. Reese v. ATF - Second Amendment Rights for Adults Under 21

In a major victory for proponents of the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that to deny an individual aged 18-20 the right to obtain a handgun was an infringement of their Second Amendment rights and a denial of equal protections under the Fifth Amendment.

In the wake of prominent Second Amendment cases Heller and Bruen, lower courts have struggled to interpret the limits of permissible gun regulations. Through its blanket rejection of restrictions for all adults, the Fifth Circuit has applied a maximalist reading of the aforementioned cases, treating virtually any limits to the Second Amendment as unconstitutional. At a moment when mass shootings by young adults have already sparked intense debates, the court’s decision is particularly striking.

Targeting the Bench: Impacts of Judge Shopping

Plaintiffs suing the federal government have the privilege to choose which district they file their suit in, provided a local connection can be established. Some districts, however, only have one judge, allowing plaintiffs to “shop” for judges based on their ideological inclinations.

For conservatives, many such judges can be found in federal district courts that appeal to the Fifth Circuit such as the Northern District of Texas. Within the Northern District, the Amarillo division has faced great scrutiny recently. Nearly all federal cases are heard by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee with well-documented conservative views. Having appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the conservative supermajority makes it statistically likely a favorable ruling is reached. Even if a panel draws a rare liberal majority, the en banc process, allowing the court to rehear the case as a whole, provides a mechanism for the conservative majority to reassert control.

As might be anticipated, this practice has led to numerous highly consequential cases being allowed to take an “easy route.” For instance, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a challenge to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, was filed in the Northern District of Texas, though the Supreme Court later rejected the Alliance’s complaint. Similarly, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization originated in the Southern District of Mississippi, another conservative judicial stronghold.

From New Orleans to Washington

In the High Court’s last term, 12—or approximately 20%—of its cases originated from the Fifth Circuit. This prominence, however, is not only a matter of volume; the Fifth Circuit has heard some of the most controversial and consequential cases in recent jurisprudence. Most notably, Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, came before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Fifth Circuit.

This dynamic, however, is also reflective of tensions between the Fifth Circuit and the Roberts Court. While the High Court has overturned almost all of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in the past term, it cannot avoid addressing them. In effect, it forces the Supreme Court to engage with questions it might have otherwise sidestepped. Even with the reversals, the circuit succeeds in shaping the Court’s agenda and hastening timelines for doctrinal shifts.

For conservatives, the Fifth Circuit provides a sort of “judicial laboratory” where bold and, at times, procedurally extreme legal theories can be tested, legitimized, and then potentially adopted as the law of the land. To liberals, however, the significant influence of the circuit represents an imbalance whereby a single regional court can set terms for national constitutional changes.

As the Supreme Court prepares to sit for their “long conference”—where the justices select which of hundreds of petitions to hear in the new term—cases from the Fifth Circuit are all but certain to capture headlines in next year’s news cycle.

Challenges to the Fifth Circuit’s Ascendency

The Fifth Circuit’s aggressive jurisprudence has not gone unanswered. Across the nation, proponents of the “living Constitution” have begun to develop strategies to blunt the court’s growing influence.

To counteract the court’s impact, some liberal advocacy organizations have, ironically, employed the same litigation strategy as conservatives: judge shopping. In a 2024 case regarding LGBTQ rights, attorneys from the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and other organizations and law firms were accused of attempting to have their case assigned to Judge Myron Thompson, a Jimmy Carter appointee. With that effort being unsuccessful, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

Public advocacy groups have also played key roles in framing the circuit’s decisions within broader societal contexts. Organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have highlighted instances where court rulings have impacted civil rights, such as the court’s delayed recognition of LGBTQ and free speech rights in Spectrum WT v. Wendler.

On a national level, Congresswomen Mikie Sherill (D-NJ) introduced the End Judge Shopping Act of 2023 in response to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The legislation aims to prohibit suits that seek injunctions from being filed in single judge judicial districts, preventing “judge shopped” cases from having nationwide implications. Currently, though the bill has been introduced in both the Senate and House, it has not progressed beyond that stage.

Judging America

The Fifth Circuit’s decisions ripple far beyond its marble courthouse in New Orleans. It has forced some of the United States’ most powerful institutions—the Supreme Court, Congress—to grapple with questions of power, rights, and the limits of the law. The circuit’s recent notoriety serves as a reminder of the incredible influence that relatively small, regional benches can have on a nation’s legal landscape and the lives of the millions they serve.