Fifth Circuit Court Opinion: Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc

United Sta tes Court of Ap peals f or the Fifth Circuit ________ ____ _ No. 25 - 3047 8 ________ ____ _ Voice of th e Exp erienc ed, a m emb ership organ izat ion on behalf of itself and its member s; Myron Smit h, Indiv iduall y and on behalf of all others sim ilarly sit uated; Dam aris Jac kson, In divid ually an d on behal f of all ot hers simil arly sit uated; Nat e Wa lker, Individua lly and on behal f of all ot hers simil arly sit uated; Dar rius Willia ms, Indivi dually and on be half o f all ot hers similar ly sit uated; K e vias Hi cks; J osep h Guillory; Alv in W illiams, Plaint iffs —Appellees, versus James M. L eBlan c, Se cretar y, De part ment o f Public Safet y and Corrections; Tim H ooper, Warde n, Lou isiana State Penitent iary; Louisiana D epartment of Public S afety and Correct ions, Defendant s — Appell ants. ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ __ Appea l from the Un ited States Dis trict Co urt for the Midd le District o f Louisian a USDC N o. 3:23 - CV - 13 04 ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ __ United S tates Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 2 7, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 2 ON PET ITIO N FO R REH EARI NG EN BA NC Befor e Davis, Stewart, a nd Rami rez, Circuit J udges. Per Curiam: Treatin g the pe tition f or rehe aring e n banc as a petit ion for pan el rehea ring (5th Cir. R. 40 I.O.P.), the petition f or pan el rehe aring is DENIED. The petitio n for rehearing e n banc is DENIED because, at the reque st of on e of its me mbers, th e cour t was polled, and a m ajority did n ot vote in f avor of r eheari ng (Fed. R. Ap p. P. 40 and 5th Cir. R. 4 0). In the en banc poll, six judges voted in fa vor of reh eari ng, J udges Jones, Smi th, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Old ham, a nd eleven j udg es voted against reh earing, Chief Judg e Elro d, a nd Judges Stewart, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Wi llett, Wilson, Douglas, and Rami rez. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 3 Edith H. Jon es, Circuit J udge, joi ned by Smith, Ho, Dunca n, a nd Oldha m, Circuit Ju dges, dissentin g from de nial of reheari ng en ban c: I respe ctfully d issent fro m this cour t’s failure to rehear th is appeal en banc and forcef ully rebuke th e district cou rt’s gamesm anship that av oide d the req uirements of federal law. The authority o f feder al courts sp rings from our adh erence to gover ning law, which derives fr om statu tes en acted by Congress, Supreme Court rul ings, and for Fifth Circuit d istri ct cou rts, rulings o f this court. As Hamilton put it, A rticle III fede ral cour ts have “neit her For ce n or Wil l, but merel y judg ment.” The Federalis t No. 78 (Ale xander Ham ilton). Judgmen t must be base d sound ly and impar tially on the law. That gove rning law is in conve nien t or personally unpalatable affo rds no basis for re fusing to abide by it. I t is u p to t he A rticle III co urts to police judicial r efusals to foll ow the law. Th is case, th ough by f ar not th e only examp le of r e cent judicial dis obed ience, is emblem atic. Twice, the district co urt h ere disobeyed the Prison Litigat ion Re form Act, wh ich mandate s that al l prelim inary in junctio ns in institutio nal pris on reform cas es expire after 9 0 days if they are n ot made p erman ent. 1 8 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). See Mille r v. French, 530 U.S. 32 7, 339, 120 S. Ct. 224 6, 2254 (2000) (the p urpose o f the PLRA was to “curb[] the eq uitable d iscretio n of district courts. ”). To avoid autom atic expir ation, the co urt must “ make [] the findings required under subs ection (a)(1) for the entry of prospecti ve relief and make [] the order f inal before the expiratio n of the 9 0 - day period.” 18 U.S.C. § 362 6(a)(2) (empha sis added). And t he court must find that “such r elief is narrow ly draw n, extends no fu rther tha n necessa ry to corr ect the vio lation of the Fede ral right, and is the least in trusive means necessar y to corre ct the violation of the Federal righ t.” Id. § 3626(a)(1)(A). When the court’s tw o violations o f the PLRA occur red, litigatio n in this case ab out pr ison ers’ f arming d uring th e summe r had alre ady been Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 4 pend ing a year, an d the distri ct cour t’s init ial i nterim relief had be en staye d in part by this cou rt. 1 This court su bsequently held the ap peal moot becaus e the pr elimin ary injun ction’s 9 0 - day t erm h ad expir ed u nder th e PLR A. 2 When th e next far ming season rol led arou nd, a new moti on was filed for inj unctive re lief. The district cour t issued a new prelimin ary order, an d it was imm ediate ly appeale d. Voice of the Exper ienced v. LeBlanc (II), No. 2 5 - 30322. Appa rent ly s eeki ng t o avoi d the PLRA’ s strin gent substantive requ irements, th e distr ict cour t let its prelim inary in junctio n exp ire. Thi s court de clared the case moo t and did no t rule on the mer its. T he state sough t rehearin g en b anc. But one day after the 90 - day dead line, th e district cou rt reimp osed an identical in jun ctio n, also without th e factfindin g s required by § 3626 (a)(1) (A). Voice of the Exper ienced v. LeBlanc (III), N o. 25 - 30478. The state again (un success fully) so ught reh earing en banc. Yet again, this court h as declare d the case moot after the PLRA’s 9 0 - day deadline expired. 3 And th is court h as refused to entertain a petition for reh earing en banc. I re spectfully dissent. For tw o years, the stat e of Louisian a has bee n he ld ho stage to s erial interim -but- expiring in jun ctive de crees, bu t it has been unable t o obtain appellate revi ew. Even with e xpedited appellate sche dules in this court, the prelim inary in junction s expire d, and th e appea l s wer e held moot. Obviously, mootne ss effe ctively p reve nts appe llate con sideratio n of th e pr oprie ty of any PLRA - gover ned prelim inar y injuncti on. Even wors e from a leg al standpoint, 1 Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc (I), No. 24 - 30420. The distr ict court’s tempo rary restraini ng order was tr eated by t his court f unctio nally a s a re viewable prelim inary i njunct ion. 2 Given th e vicis situde s of l itigat ion, per hap s the c ourt’s failur e to follo w th e PLRA in t his initial sk irmish wa s ano malous. 3 Since the farmin g seaso n clo sed in the fa ll, t he distr ict co urt fi nally co mmenc ed a full injunctio n heari ng on th e clai med viola tion o f priso ners’ r ights dur ing t his wi nter. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 5 the th reat that a distr ict cou rt co uld com mit serial viola tions o f the PL RA with 9 0 - day “pr elimin ary” re lief or ders that e scape ap pella te revie w is intole rable. C ongre ss enacted the PL RA precise ly to cu rb exce ssive and imprud ent judicial m anage ment of state and local p rison f acilities. The Suprem e Cour t has admon ished that priso n administr ation is amo ng the most dif ficult but impo rtant tasks of gove rnme nt of ficials. Turn er v. Safley, 482 U. S. 7 8, 8 4 – 85, 107 S. Ct. 2 254, 2259 (1987). Feder al court s’ inapp ro priate in terfe rence with prison managemen t underm ines basic principle s of F ede ralism. C ongre ss very delibe rately lim ited th e gro und s by which federal j udges may im pose liability and reme dial meas ures on prison administr ators. M iller, 5 30 U.S. at 33 9 – 340, 120 S. Ct. at 2254. In this ca se, w here th e specte r of se rial pre liminary injun ctive or ders by a noncom pliant j udge has beco me real, this co urt sh ould have gran ted appellate revie w under th e mootness e xception for issues capable of repe tition y et evadin g revie w. The except i on requi res tha t “(1) ‘ the challen ged actio n [must be] in its duratio n too s hort to be fully litigate d prior to cessatio n or expiratio n ’ and (2) ‘ ther e [must be] a reasonable e xpectation that the same co mplainin g party w ill be su bject to th e same action a ga in. ’ ” Shemwell v. Cit y of McKinney, 63 F.4t h 480, 48 4 (5th Ci r. 2023) (q uoting Kingdom ware T echs., Inc. v. Unite d State s, 57 9 U.S. 162, 17 0, 13 6 S. Ct. 196 9, 1976 (2016)). The fact t hat thre e app eals have been d ismisse d as moo t prove s the fir st factor, and th e fact th at an id entical in junction is at issu e in at least two app eals pro ves the s econ d factor. The panel s her e were bound by our d ecisi on in Sm ith v. Edwards, which held that a p relimin ary inj unction un der the P LRA doe s not meet the capable o f repe tition e xception to mootn ess. S mith v. Edw ards, 8 8 F.4th 1119, 1125–2 6 (5th Cir. 2023). Smit h held that the 90 - day de adline in the PLRA is not “ne cessarily too shor t a time fu lly to lit igate a chal lenge to a PLRA inju nction.” Id. at 11 26. The instant pr oceedin gs refute that hold ing. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 6 Altho ugh this court h as no t decid ed “h ow much jud icial revie w is n eeded” befor e a matte r has evad ed revi ew, Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren, 977 F.3d 367, 370 (5 th Cir. 2020), othe r circuits ho ld that su fficie nt ju dicial re view mean s parties mus t hav e time to s eek “ ‘ plenary review ’ b y the S uprem e Court,” I n re Flint W ater Cas es, 53 F.4 t h 176, 189 (6t h Ci rc. 20 22) (quot ing First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellott i, 435 U. S. 7 65, 774, 98 S. Ct. 1 40 7, 1414 (1978)). 4 Two circu its’ d ecision s that involv ed app eals und er the PLRA ruled primarily on the se cond te st for the m ootne ss exceptio n: each confro nted on ly a sin gle in jun ction th at had e xpire d with in 90 day s, b ut the courts fo und th at th e like lihoo d of dis trict court e vasion w as rem ote. S ee United States v. Sec’y, Fla. De p’t o f Cor., 7 78 F.3d 1 223, 122 9 (11 th Cir. 2015) (“no basi s. . . to pred ict that [the pl aintiff w ill seek] a ne w pr eliminar y inju nction, ” nor that “the district co urt. . . will re frain fr om fin alizing its order.”); Ahl man v. Barnes, 20 F.4th 489, 491 (9 th Cir. 2021) (b eca use t he COVID epidemic had sub sided, “the chance that Plaintiff s succe ssfully acquire anoth er pre liminary in jun ction. . . is remot e.”). Ahlman also he ld, howeve r, that in many PLRA ap peals, th e preliminar y injun ction “will n ot be fully lit igated befo re the in junction expires.” Ahlman, 20 F.4t h at 494. Theref ore, the first crit erion for the m ootne ss exceptio n was fulfille d. Id. The Supr em e Court it self “has he ld that p eriod s of twe lve mon ths, Turner v. Rogers, 564 U. S. 43 1, 440 (20 11), eigh teen mo nths, Firs t Nat' l Bank, 435 U.S. at 7 74, a nd eve n two y ear s, Kin gdomware T echs., Inc. v. U nited St ates, 4 See also Uni ted Bhd. of Carpen ters & Joiner s of Am., AFL - CIO v. Operati ve Plasterers' & Cement Maso ns' Int'l Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, AFL - CIO, 72 1 F.3 d 678, 688 (D.C. Cir. 2 013) (“ To evade revi ew, t he chall enged actio n must be inca pable o f surv iving long e nough to under go S upreme Court revi ew.”); Asso ciat ed Energy Grp., L LC v. Uni ted St ate s, 131 F.4th 13 12, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“ ‘[E] vading rev iew ’ mean s that t he underly ing act ion is a lmost cert ain t o run its co urs e before either thi s court o r the Supr eme Court can g ive the case full c onsidera tion.” (q uoting Alc oa, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 698 F.3d 774, 787 (9th Cir. 2012)); Shell Offshore, Inc. v. G reenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th Cir. 2013) (holdin g tha t a cas e is only fully litigat ed if it has oppo rtunit y to be “reviewed by [a circuit court] and the Supreme Court.”). Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 7 579 U. S. 162, 170 (20 16), are too short to obtain co mple te review.” In re Flint Water Case s, 53 F.4t h a t 189. Ninety days is not e nough time for a PLRA case to be fu lly resolve d on app eal. Th is cour t sho uld have foun d by at le ast the seco nd inju nctive orde r in question th at the d istrict court’ s noncomp liance w ith the PLRA raised iss ues capab le of rep etition y et evading review. This cou rt sho uld have taken a stan d again st jud icial fai lure to abide by the law. I disse nt. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 8 Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Ju dge, j oined b y Stewart, Graves, and Dougla s, C ircuit Jud ge s, concu rring in denial of r eh earing en banc: It is a diss ervic e to ou r branch for an y inferio r office r to spe ak of “rebu k[ing]” o r “policing” ano ther. In that spirit, w e would all do well to rememb er o ur la te c olleag ue Judg e Rea vl ey’s kind and ge ntle re minder that “[t]he trial jud ge is the key to the ad ministration of ju stice.. . . [I]t is a functio n of th e circuit j udge to be an enabler o f the tr ial judge, becau se the trial cou rt is the point o f delive ry of justice.” Thom as M. Re avley, TMR’ s Judicial Philos ophy, in Reavl ey on Law, Judging, and the G ood Life 7, 7, 9 (Brya n A. Gar ner ed., 20 22); see also Alvi n B. Rub in, Views fro m the Lower Court, 23 UCLA L. Re v. 4 48, 45 2 (197 6) (“In t hese e nd eavo rs, hyperb ole an d metaphor are m ore frequen tly a hindran ce than a help.”). Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 9 James C. Ho, C ircu it Judge, di ssenti ng from the d enial of rehea ri ng en banc: I regre t that we ’re not taking this case en b anc. I get th at this appe al may becom e moot — the district cou rt may so on enter final j udgm ent, and thus supplant the pre liminary inju nction. See Koppula v. Jaddou, 7 2 F.4t h 83 (5th C ir. 20 23). But e ven if so, this d enial o rder s erves tw o usefu l functio ns. First, J udge Jones’s impo rtant diss ent de tails th e trou bling se ries of actions by the d istrict cou rt. I j oin he r call to arm s on th e need for appe llate courts to police insubo rdination in the d istrict co urts. See a lso In re West cott, 135 F. 4th 243, 250 & n.1, 251 (5th Cir. 2025) (Ho, J., concu rring). On e hop es that distr ict co urts in o ur circuit w ill he ed he r mess age. 1 Second, the support for r ehearing en ba nc toda y restores and reaff irms the prop er standa rds tha t do (and do not) gov ern reh eari ng en b anc. In Uni ted S tates v. Bell, 130 F.4th 1 053 (5th Ci r. 2025), t he supp ort for en banc review reaffirme d that th e lack of an e n banc petitio n is not a good reason to den y en ban c — a point that warran ted clar ifica tion afte r Neese v. Becerra, 127 F.4th 601 (5th C ir. 2025). Today ’s order like wise res tores an en banc principle p ut into question in Nees e. We re affirm today that a sugge stion o f mootn ess (like the absen ce of an e n banc p etition) is not a good reas on to deny r ehear ing en ba nc. 1 Our colleagues conte nd that it’s wrong to comment on insubordi nation by federal judges. See ante, at 8 (Higgi nson, J., conc urring i n the denial o f rehe aring en b anc). But they did just that — indeed, just la st week — in Roake v. B rumley, _ F.4th _, _ (5th Cir. 2026) (Den nis, J., disse nting) (accu sing feder al jud ges of “e vad[ing]” prec edent in a “c alculat ed” “maneuv er” to v iolate the “vert ical fide lity tha t defines the rol e of an i nferior c ourt”). Their dissent in R oake d emonstr ates that t hey se e nothin g wro ng wit h jud ges jud ging t he work of o ther judges. Nor do I. I ndeed, t hat’ s our job. T he only qu esti on is wheth er a par ticular a lle gation of insubordina tion is true or fals e. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 10 To be gin with, a suggestion of mootn ess is j ust that — a suggestio n. It may well b e pro ven false. 2 And even if the su ggestion o f mootn ess comes tru e, it’s s till worth granting e n ban c review, jus t to vacate the e rrant pan el pre ceden t. See Neese, 127 F. 4th at 603 n. 1 (Ho, J., disse nting fr om the d enial of re hearin g en banc). Take Spectrum WT v. Wendle r, 1 57 F.4t h 673 (5th Ci r. 2025). Tha t appeal fe ature d both ele ments fr om Neese — namely, (1) no en ban c petition, and (2) a su ggesti on of mootness. I n fact, it presented a mu ch higher ri sk of mootness than Neese (ant e, at n.1). Pending pr oceedi ngs in t he Spectrum WT district c ourt, li ke he re, stron gly ind icated that f inal j udgmen t would so on supplan t the p reliminary injunctio n. We grante d en banc review anyway — thus vaca ting er rant p ane l prece dent. And the n we d ismissed the ap peal as moot. See Ord er, No. 23 - 1 0994 (5th Ci r. Jan. 20, 20 26). The pane l decision here was un published and thus n on - preceden tial. So if re hearin g en banc is warran ted eve n here — an d I agree that it is — then it was a fortiori warrante d in both Spectrum WT and Neese. 2 See Neese, 127 F.4th at 603 n.1 (H o, J., disse nting from t he denial o f rehea ring en ba nc) (opposing misuse o f “ proc edural st rata gems to avoid j udic ial revie w,” such as a suggest ion of mootness bec ause t he gov ernment purports t o have ab and oned its vi ews) (cit ing ca ses); see also Tennessee v. Kennedy, 2025 WL 2982069, * 4 (S.D. Miss. 2025) (later order ing sa me relief that the distri ct court gr anted i n Neese, because “De fendants ha ve not deli neated any e fforts t hey ha ve made to comply with th e Pre sident ’ s directives ”). Judge Jone s believ es the s ugge stion of mootness will pr ove fa lse here, t oo. Taking t his case en banc would have allo wed us to explore her th eory furth er. See, e. g., Independence P arty of Ri chmond Cnty. v. G raham, 413 F.3d 252, 25 6 (2 n d Cir. 2005) (“To apply the ‘capable of repetiti on yet evadin g review’ e xception to other wise moo t app eals of pre liminar y inj unctions would, moreover, impermissib ly eva de the or dina ry rule, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91, that appe llate cour ts review only ‘fi nal d ecisio ns’ of a lowe r cour t.”). Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 11 * * * I’m grate ful to J udge Jon es for emphasizing th e impo rtance of po licing district cou rts — and for r eaffirm ing that a su ggestion of moo tness, like th e absence of a n en ba nc pet ition, is not a good reas on to deny e n banc r evi ew. Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 12 Cory T. Wils on, Circuit Judge, r espe cting the den ial of rehe aring en banc: Under th e Priso n Litigation Refo rm Act (PLRA), prelim inary inju nctions automatical ly exp ire afte r 90 day s unle ss the district cou rt make s specific f actual findin gs to s uppor t exten ding th e inj unction. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (2). Ge ner ally, on ce a pre liminary inj unctio n exp ires, it is moo t and there fore unre viewable by our court. Smith v. Edwards, 88 F.4th 111 9, 1124 (5th Cir. 2023). Yet in this ap peal, o ur cour t faces a co ncern ing conundr um: If a distri ct court m ay sim ply ente r a “new” p reliminary injunc tion unde r the PLRA on d ay 91, afte r a prior one expires, th at court can fu nction ally evade the PL RA’s exp ress curbs on its injunc tive powe r, seeming ly insulate d fro m appellate revie w. This litig ation, in volvin g Louisian a prison ers’ e xposure to summer heat w hile w orking th e pen itentiary ’s farm lin e, stark ly il lustrate s the proble m. The inju nctive relie f fashio ned b y the district co urt was n eeded only in the s umm er growi ng season, i.e., for abo ut 90 day s, give o r take. S o for two years now, as green s hoots emerg ed in t he spring, so did pl ainti ffs’ reque sts for p relimin ary inju nctive re lief, af ter lyin g fallo w durin g the coo ler month s. And as spring tu rned to summe r, the d istrict court e nt ered “pre liminary ” relie f, which lap sed pe r the PLRA ’s time frame before ou r court co uld revie w th e inj unction s on s ubstance. Like Judge Jones and my other dissen ting colle agues, I am dee ply skeptical that this p attern complie s with the PLRA’ s statutory parame ters. But I vote d against h earin g this case e n ban c because it pr esen ts a poor vehicle to addre ss the prob lems with the distric t court’ s appro ach. First, the mootness - exception issue — the co ncern d riving Judg e Jones ’ s dissent — was not squa rely p ut b efore our VO TE panel. As a re sult, in dismis sing th e secon d of the se ser ial appe als, we did no t have occasio n to co nside r the iss ue Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/27/2026

No. 25 - 30478 13 in any d epth. See Voice of the Exper ienced v. LeBlanc, 20 25 WL 24 813 82 (5th Cir. Aug. 2 8, 202 5) (V OTE II); see also Voice of the Ex perienced v. Westcott, 2025 W L 22 229 90 (5t h Ci r. Aug. 5, 2025) (VO TE I); Voice o f the Experienced v. LeBl anc, 202 5 WL 3 252 638 (5th C ir. N ov. 21, 202 5) (VOTE III). An d eve n assumin g the iss ue was pro perly raised by the State, I am not co nvinc ed th at Smith v. Edwards is irrecon cilable with the VOTE pa nels’ holdi ngs. Nor am I convi nced that Smith was inco rrect in its an alysis of the capa ble - of - repe tition - yet - evading - review except ion to moot ness. In ot her words, I am not re ady to jettiso n the notio n that meaningful re view of a dis trict cou rt’s prelim inary in junction is feasible with in the P LRA’s e xpress fr amework — even if it wou ld, by d efinition, need to be expedite d. Regardle ss, the se cases w ill also sho rtly be moot for anoth er reason: Earlier th is mon th, the district court co nducte d a five - day benc h trial o n the prison ers’ c laims for d eclara tory an d per manent inj unctive r elief. Whi cheve r way the d istrict cour t’s r uling goe s, the peren nial crop of prelim inary inju nctions will not be sown again during th is year ’s grow ing seaso n. Therefor e, whi le I sha re many of the c oncern s sket ched by J udge Jones about th e “ever green” prelim inary r elief at is sue, th e more jud icious c ourse is a patien t one. At bottom, I “ do not believe our en banc resou rces are warran ted to revie w the m ootnes s question” in the case at hand. Sacrament o Homeless Union v. C ity of Sacr ament o, 115 F.4t h 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2024) (Nelso n, J., re specting th e denial o f reh earing en banc). Case: 25-30478 Document: 118-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/27/2026