{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:91e6ebc8c0e9a7a9948e7d82ad5508afa1456e899ff82f12823c52c64552c7ed","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Parish of Cameron,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff—Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"State of Louisiana, formerly known as Louisiana Department","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"of Energy and Natural Resources, on behalf of Louisiana","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Department of Conservation & Energy,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Intervenor Plaintiff—Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., formerly known as","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"PennzEnergy Exploration and Production, L.L.C., formerly","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"known as Pennzoil Exploration & Production Company,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Defendant/Cross-Claimant—Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"for the Western District of Louisiana","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"USDC No. 2:26-CV-1335","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"PUBLISHED ORDER","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Per Curiam:","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. (“Devon”), requests that","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"October 5, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Lyle W. Cayce","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"this court recognize an automatic stay of the district court’s remand to the","paragraph_id":"para_35","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Louisiana state courts while Devon appeals that remand. The district court","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"remanded because it held that Devon had improperly removed to federal","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Devon","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"appealed that remand by exercising its right under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Devon contends that its § 1447(d) right to appeal entitles it to an","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"automatic stay of the remand. In the alternative, Devon asks for a discretion-","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"ary stay of that remand. Louisiana and Cameron Parish respond that the","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"remand is not automatically stayed and that Devon is not entitled to a dis-","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"cretionary stay.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Devon was entitled to an automatic stay of the district court’s remand","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"order once its § 1447(d) notice of appeal was docketed. The federal officer","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"removal statute and binding precedent require as much. And the Anti-","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Injunction Act presents no bar to Devon’s entitlement to a stay.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"“We review a district court’s decision to stay a proceeding for abuse","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"of discretion, but to the extent that such a decision rests on an interpretation","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"of law, the review is de novo.”1 Because this issue is legal—whether the","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"district court mistakenly interpreted the federal officer removal statute and","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"binding precedent when it failed to recognize an automatic stay—we review","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"that decision de novo.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"A short procedural history is in order. This case arose when various","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Louisiana parishes—joined by the state of Louisiana as an intervenor—sued","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"1 Plaquemines Par. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 84 F.4th 362, 373 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"Noatex Corp. v. King Constr. L.L.C., 732 F.3d 479, 488 (5th Cir. 2013)) (internal quotation","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"oil and gas companies in state courts for damage to the Louisiana coast.","paragraph_id":"para_66","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"Devon was one of the defendants. Devon removed to federal court under the","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Section 1442 removes to federal court “[a] civil action or criminal pro-","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"secution that is commenced in a State court and that is directed against”","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"(1) “[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof”","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"whether in an individual or official capacity, “for or relating to any act under","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"collection of the revenue”; (2) a property holder whose title is derived from","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"federal officers and where such a suit would affect the validity of federal law;","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"or (3) an officer of the judiciary or Congress. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Devon removed on two grounds. It asserted that the suit challenged","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Devon’s “conservation activities taken while acting in furtherance of the","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"federal government’s property interest in the [Rockefeller Wildlife Re-","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"fuge].” Br. of Devon at 7 (quoting Notice of Removal at 2–10). And it argued","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"removal was proper because “the lawsuit challenged Exxon’s [a co-defen-","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"dant’s] World War II avgas [aviation gas] production efforts under federal","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"contracts.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Louisiana moved to remand. As the remand motion lay pending,","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Exxon settled and was excused from the case. Then, on August 19, 2026, the","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"district court issued an opinion in a closely related case that directly impli-","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"cated the one at bar. The opinion concluded that “Devon failed to satisfy the","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"‘acting under’ element required for federal officer removal because (1) it did","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"not operate under any World War II contracts and (2) it did not act under the","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"federal government through its Refuge conservation activities.” Br. of Devon","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"at 9 (citing Par. of Cameron v. Alpine Expl. Co., No. 2:26-CV-01337, 2026 WL","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"2428143, at *14 (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2026)). On August 21, 2026, the district","paragraph_id":"para_97","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"court entered a remand in this case.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Devon filed a notice of appeal, using § 1447(d). It also filed an emer-","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"gency motion to clarify or stay the remand order. The district court denied","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Devon’s motion. Devon now moves for this court to recognize an automatic","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"stay of the remand as this court considers its appeal on the merits.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"We agree and hold that an automatic stay of the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"remand was effective once Devon’s notice of appeal under § 1447(d) was","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"docketed. We thus grant the motion for stay pending appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Like the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, we hold that Devon is entitled","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"to an automatic stay for the duration of its appeal. We reach this conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"in three steps. First, the federal officer removal statute entitles Devon to","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"appeal a district court finding against removability in federal court. Second,","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"the Griggs principle, see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"58 (1982), applies and renders available automatic stays in this federal officer","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"removal context. Third, the federal officer removal statute does not displace","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"the Griggs principle.2","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"2 Because the Griggs principle, as a self-contained matter, affords Devon an auto-","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"matic stay pending appeal—even after the district court transmitted a remand order—we","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"need not address Devon’s contention that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) auto-","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"matically stayed the remand order following its entry. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits,","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"too, recognized automatic stays once a § 1447(d) notice of appeal is docketed on the ground","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"of Griggs alone. See City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., 128 F.4th 265, 270 (4th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"2025) (“A district court is therefore immediately required to halt all proceedings covered","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"by the Griggs principle when a proper notice of appeal is docketed, whether or not the","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"parties ask it to.”); City of Brunswick v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 184 F.4th 1230, 1241–42 (11th","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Cir. 2026) (“Relying, then, on the Griggs principle as explained in Coinbase, we hold that","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"the appeal of a motion to remand under § 1447(d) triggers an automatic stay of all district","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"court proceedings—including the remand order—pending resolution of the appeal.”),","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_131","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"Consider the federal officer removal statute. As discussed above,","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"§ 1442 permits the removal of state court proceedings to federal district court","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"when the matter implicates certain federal interests.3","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"And § 1447(d) provides that “an order remanding a case to the State","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” In other words, § 1447(d) pro-","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"vides the right to an interlocutory appeal whenever a district court remands","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"to state court for want of removal jurisdiction under the federal officer","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"removal statute.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Now consider the Griggs principle, which was most recently distilled","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023). Coinbase concerned whether","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"there is an automatic stay of district court proceedings when a party, under","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"its statutory right in 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), files an interlocutory appeal of a district","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court an-","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"swered in the affirmative. Applying Griggs, it reasoned that when an issue is","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"appealed, the district court is “divest[ed] . . . of its control over those aspects","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"of the case involved in the appeal.” Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 740 (quoting Griggs,","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"459 U.S. at 58 (internal quotation marks omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"petition for cert. filed (Sept. 1, 2026) (No. 26-289).","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"3 See Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Par., 608 U.S. 1, 6 (2026) (“Under the fed-","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"eral officer removal statute, a removing defendant must satisfy three requirements. 1) the","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"removing defendant must be the United States, a federal agency, a federal officer, or a per-","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"son ‘acting under’ a federal officer, such as certain private parties hired to assist federal","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"officers. 2) the suit must be ‘for or relating to any act under color of such office.’","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"§ 1442(a)(1). 3) the removing defendant must assert “a colorable federal defense.”)","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"(cleaned up).","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"As a corollary of a § 16(a) appeal’s jurisdictional shift, an automatic","paragraph_id":"para_163","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"stay must issue. Otherwise, “Congress’ decision in § 16(a) to afford a right","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"to an interlocutory appeal would be largely nullified.” Id. at 743. Allowing","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"the trial to move forward whilst a court of appeals considers the arbitrability","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"issue would render “many of the asserted benefits of arbitration [such as","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"efficiency] . . . irretrievably lost.” Id. “Absent a stay, parties also could be","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"forced to settle to avoid the district court proceedings (including discovery","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"and trial) that they contracted to avoid through arbitration.” Id. Not staying","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"trial proceedings would also derogate judicial economy. Id. And “when Con-","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"gress wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal, but not to automatically stay","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"district court proceedings pending that appeal, Congress typically says so.”","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Id. at 744.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"In short, automatic stays must issue when “continuation of proceed-","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"ings in the district court largely defeats the point of the appeal.” Id. at 743","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"(citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"The Griggs principle applies here. Its logic and justifications work","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"with equal force to the federal officer removal statute.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"At bottom, Coinbase and Griggs teach that when an interlocutory","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"appeal is filed, an automatic stay obtains where not granting one would","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"“defeat[] the point of the appeal,” nullifying “Congress’ decision . . . to","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"afford a right to an interlocutory appeal” in turn. Id. at 743–44. 4 And they","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"instruct that the Griggs principle is a backdrop presumption read into other-","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"4 Of course, an automatic stay pending an interlocutory appeal only stays the lower","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"court proceedings affected by the appeal. Unrelated lower court proceedings may proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"The contours of an automatic stays pending appeal are controlled by its lodestar of vindi-","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"cating “Congress’s decision” to provide a right to an interlocutory appeal, after all. See","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 743–44.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"wise silent authorizations of interlocutory appeals. The Coinbase Court","paragraph_id":"para_195","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"recognized the Griggs principle’s trans-substantive nature: “In relying on","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"Griggs, Coinbase did not discriminate between arbitration and other appeals.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Indeed, it went out of its way to approvingly recognize that qualified immun-","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"ity and double jeopardy were ‘analogous contexts’ where the courts of","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"appeals have long imposed automatic stays upon appeal.” City of Martins-","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"ville, 128 F.4th at 271 (quoting Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 742 & n.2).","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"To begin, the facts here parallel those in Coinbase. “[J]ust as [the","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Coinbase] appeal of a motion to compel arbitration decides the forum in which","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"proceedings will continue, the appeal of a remand order decides ‘whether the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"case belongs in [state court] or instead in the district court.’ In both contexts,","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"‘the entire case is essentially ‘involved in the appeal.’’” City of Brunswick,","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"184 F.4th at 1240 (quoting Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 743 and Griggs, 459 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"at 58) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"As in Coinbase, not automatically staying the remand order could jeo-","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"pardize Devon’s appeal and undermine Congress’s decision to afford the","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"§ 1447(d) right to appeal. The point of Devon’s Section 1447(d) appeal—","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"and Section 1447(d) appeals generally—is to adjudicate its right to removal","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"under Section 1442. And the right to removal is—eponymously—a right to","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"be removed from the jurisdiction of state courts. Not staying the remand","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"order, therefore, would defeat Devon’s appeal, for Devon would be subjected","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"to the jurisdiction of the state court: It would lose the right that it seeks to","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"retain by exercising its § 1447(d) appeal. Further, “[u]nless the district court","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"or state court grants a discretionary stay pending appeal, it is likely that state","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"court proceedings during the appeal would require . . . litigation in state","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"court—[which could] moot[] this appeal . . . . Recognizing an automatic stay","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"in this context preserves Congress’s choice to grant appellate review of deci-","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"sions denying federal officer removal.” City of Brunswick, 184 F.4th at 1240","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"(citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"Granted, Coinbase applied Griggs to a stay of a federal district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_227","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"proceedings and did not implicate state court proceedings. Hence, Louisiana","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"distinguishes Coinbase, reasoning that Devon’s proposed stay would divest","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"“another sovereign of jurisdiction.” Br. of Louisiana at 13 (cleaned up).","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"This court’s decision in Plaquemines Parish averts Louisiana’s theory.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"As Louisiana agrees, we noted in Plaquemines Parish that district courts retain","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"jurisdiction to enter discretionary stays when a party appeals under","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"§ 1447(d). Plaquemine Par., 84 F.4th at 371–73. Those discretionary stays,","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"like the automatic stay sought, would also divest state courts—another sov-","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"ereign—of their jurisdiction. If discretionary stays are available and comply","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"with federalism, then the same is true about automatic stays. Louisiana’s","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"argument proves too much.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Louisiana retorts that the Griggs principle’s applicability was fore-","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"closed by Plaquemines Parish. It avers that this court in Plaquemines Parish","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"applied Coinbase while evaluating the propriety of a discretionary stay. Loui-","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"siana concludes that Coinbase’s automatic stay holding should not extend to","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"the removal context, for the Plaquemines Parish court impliedly rejected the","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"availability of an automatic stay by citing Coinbase whilst discussing the dis-","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"cretionary stay factors.","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Louisiana misreads Plaquemines Parish. While this court in Plaque-","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"mines Parish cited Coinbase, it did so in the procedural posture of the plain-","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"tiff’s asking for vacatur of the district court’s entry of a discretionary stay.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Id. at 366. We granted vacatur. Thus, the question of automatic stays was","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"not before us: We were reviewing whether the district court had erred in","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"granting a discretionary stay. Id. at 373.","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Further, this court’s citation of Coinbase was limited to explaining","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"what counts as an “irreparable harm” under the traditional test for discre-","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"tionary stays. Id. at 375–76. And we cited Coinbase for its quotation of other","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"cases that explained the scope of the irreparable harm prong. Id. (citing","paragraph_id":"para_258","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 746–47 (quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Cloth-","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"ing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974), and Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434–35","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"(2009))). Thus, Plaquemines Parish’s cursory citation of Coinbase did not","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"concern the availability—or the lack thereof—of automatic stays in the","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"removal context. Plaquemines Parish did not generate binding precedent fore-","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"closing Coinbase’s application to officer removal. We do not overturn, con-","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"tradict, or abrogate Plaquemines Parish.5","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"D.","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"The federal officer removal statute does not displace Griggs. Louisi-","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"ana postulates that § 1447(c) displaces the Griggs principle because it “estab-","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"lished . . . statutorily protected jurisdiction for the state court while any such","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"appeal is pending.” Br. of Louisiana at 12. Section 1447(c) provides, in rele-","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"vant part, that after “[a] certified copy of the order of remand [is] mailed by","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"the [district court] clerk to the clerk of the State court . . . [t]he State court","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"may thereupon proceed with such case.” Similarly, Louisiana argues that","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"because the “remand order has been transmitted to the state court, Coinbase","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"would have no work to do even if it otherwise applied: There are no district","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"court ‘proceedings’ to be stayed, for the district court is done with the case.”","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Br. of Louisiana at 11.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"5 One could contend that this decision contradicts Plaquemines Parish because it","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"abrogates the availability of discretionary stays: Discretionary stays that Plaquemines Parish","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"found available. See Plaquemines Par., 84 F.4th at 371–73. Not so. We do not hold that","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"discretionary stays are unavailable, but only that an automatic stay obtains when a § 1447(d)","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"notice of appeal is docketed.","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"While this decision curtails the necessity for discretionary stays—going forward,","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"discretionary stays in the § 1447(d) context will be rare—we do not disturb Plaquemines","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Parish’s holding that district courts retain jurisdiction to enter discretionary stays when a","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"party appeals under § 1447(d). See id. Discretionary stays remain available.","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Plaquemines Parish forecloses both arguments. Like Louisiana, the","paragraph_id":"para_291","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"Plaquemines Parish plaintiffs argued that “the district court lacked jurisdic-","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"tion to stay the remand order because the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"shows that jurisdiction transfers to the state court upon the mailing of the","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"remand order, and jurisdiction to stay the order does not follow from juris-","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"diction to vacate it.” Plaquemines Par., 84 F.4th at 371–72.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"This court rejected the foregoing argument on two grounds. “First,","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"we have stayed already-mailed remand orders at least twice since 2014, and","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"at least once in the face of identical arguments in a case closely related to this","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"one.” Id. at 372 (citing Humphries v. Elliott Co., 760 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"2014), and Order, Par. of Cameron v. BP Am., No. 19-30829 (5th Cir. Nov. 4,","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"2019), ECF No. 76). While not precedential, “they presuppose federal court","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"jurisdiction to stay an already-mailed remand order.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"Second, this court concluded that the Plaquemines Parish plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"over-read § 1447(c). We reasoned that their contention “is inconsistent with","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"the undisputed proposition that the district court retains jurisdiction to vacate","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"its already-mailed remand order because the order is appealable under sec-","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"tion 1447(d).” Id. And while this court stated in Arnold v. Garlock that “the","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"district court is divested of jurisdiction . . . . [when] the remand order . . . is","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"certified and mailed by the clerk of the district court,” 278 F.3d 426, 438 (5th","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"Cir. 2001), “Arnold speaks only to remand orders that are not appealable . . . .","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"Instead, where a remand order is appealable under Section 1447(d), the","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"remand order is treated like any other final judgment [and the district court","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"retains jurisdiction].” Plaquemines Par., 84 F.4th at 372 (1994) (citation and","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"internal quotation marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"And “because [the district court] had jurisdiction to vacate its remand","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"order, it also had jurisdiction to stay its remand order.” Id.6","paragraph_id":"para_320","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"Like the Plaquemines Parish plaintiffs’ argument, Louisiana’s conten-","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"tion fails. As Plaquemines Parish teaches, § 1447(c) does not foreclose discre-","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"tionary stays because a district court “retain[s] jurisdiction to vacate its","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"already-mailed remand order,” granting them “jurisdiction to stay its","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"remand order[s]” in turn. Id. In other words, Section 1447(c) does not","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"“statutorily protect[],” Br. of Louisiana at 12, state court jurisdiction from","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"discretionary stays.","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"Automatic stays operating in the same removal context are no differ-","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"ent. They work the same: Divesting a court proceeding of its legal force. And","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"they rely on the same jurisdictional authority: the district court’s residual jur-","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"isdiction to stay its own remand orders. If Louisiana’s theory were correct,","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"then the Plaquemines Parish court’s consideration of a discretionary stay","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"would prove unnecessary: Any stay would be foreclosed by § 1447(c). And","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"like Devon’s proposed stay, the stay discretionarily vacated in Plaquemines","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"Parish was entered after (in the Plaquemines Parish case over one month after)","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"the district court “mailed its remand order to state court.” Plaquemines Par.,","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"84 F.4th at 366. Nonetheless, in Plaquemines Parish, we vacated the district","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"court’s stay by considering the discretionary stay factors and noting that","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"§ 1447(c) serves no bar to stays in the removal context, evincing the availa-","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"bility of stays, discretionary and automatic.7","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"6 See also Christopher D. Moore, So-Called “Administrative Stays” in Trump 2.0,","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"104 Tex. L. Rev. Online 1, 9 (2025) (“A stay is . . . a temporary version of vacatur.”)","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"7 See also City of Martinsville, 128 F.4th at 271 (“Distinctions require meaningful","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"differences to matter; a decision’s rationale binds us even if some immaterial facts differ","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":". . . . As Justice Gorsuch explained in Ramos v. Louisiana, ‘[i]t is usually a judicial decision’s","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"reasoning—its ratio decidendi—that allows it to have life and effect in the disposition of","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"future cases.’”) (quoting Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 104 (2020)).","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"If anything, the Griggs principle augurs a greater availability of auto-","paragraph_id":"para_352","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"matic stays. It is a “background principle” that “reflects a longstanding","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"tenet of American procedure.” Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 740. Therefore, “when","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"Congress wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal, but not to automatically","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"stay district court proceedings pending that appeal, Congress typically says","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"so.” Id. at 744. It is presumptively read into authorizations of interlocutory","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"appeal, statutory silence notwithstanding. Id. Griggs did not apply in Plaque-","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"mines Par., for this court reviewed a discretionary stay. Nonetheless, we held","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"that § 1447(c) did not displace the availability of discretionary stays. Accord-","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"ingly, it is hard to imagine how it would rebut the Griggs principle’s presump-","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"tion of automatic stays pending appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Further, Devon’s proposed stay targets the district court’s remand","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"order, not state court proceedings themselves. Unlike injunctions, which","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"target particular parties, stays “operate[] [upon] the judicial proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"itself” by “halting or postponing some portion of the proceeding, or by tem-","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"porarily divesting an order of enforceability.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 428 (citation","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"omitted). Here, “Devon has moved for a stay of the District Court’s Remand","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"Order, not of any state court proceeding.” Devon’s Reply Br. at 7 (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"added). And Plaquemines Parish teaches that the district court retains juris-","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"diction to stay its previously mailed remand order. Plaquemines Par., 84 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"at 372. Contrary to Louisiana’s assertion, there is a valid district court","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"proceeding—a remand—to be stayed. Coinbase controls.","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Because the automatic stay deprives the state court of jurisdiction, the","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"Anti-Injunction Act provides no bar to a stay in Devon’s favor: There is no","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"state court proceeding to enjoin. And even if Devon is seeking an injunction","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"to stay state court proceedings, it is not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"because it is in aid of this Court’s jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_383","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “A court of the United States","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jur-","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"isdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283.","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"To be barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, Devon’s remedy must enjoin","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"to “stay” state court proceedings. But the automatic stay here divests the","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"state court of jurisdiction, so there are no valid state court proceedings to","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"enjoin.","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"As aforementioned, stays “operate[] [upon] the judicial proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"itself.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 428. And even after a § 1447(d) appeal, a district","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"court retains jurisdiction to stay its own remand orders owing to its juris-","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"diction to vacate its own remand; the instant automatic stay operates under","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"that residual jurisdiction. Plaquemines Par., 84 F.4th at 371–73. Considering","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"its function and jurisdictional context, the instant stay temporarily deprives","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"the district court’s remand order of its legal effect.","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"And by divesting the remand of its legal force, the stay turns off the","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"state court’s jurisdictional “pipeline,” rendering any state court proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"a nullity in turn. The remand order is the state court’s source of jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"for “the removal of a case from state court to federal court ends the power of","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"the state court to act . . . . The jurisdiction of the state court is not restored","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"unless and until the federal court remands the case.” E. D. Sys. Corp. v. Sw.","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"Bell Tel. Co., 674 F.2d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Absent","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"state court jurisdiction, there are no valid “proceedings in a State court” to","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"enjoin. 28 U.S.C. § 2283.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"But suppose that Devon is seeking an injunction to stay state court","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"proceedings. Arguably, the automatic stay here enjoins the district court","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"No. 26-30505","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"because it is recognized by an appellate court but uses—and thus directs—","paragraph_id":"para_414","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"the district court’s residual jurisdiction: The paradigmatic example of an","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"injunction’s compelling action in personam. And arguably, the automatic stay","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"stays state court proceedings, for it divests state courts of authority to hear","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"the case by divesting their predicate jurisdictional authority: the district","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"court’s remand order. If so, the instant automatic stay falls within the Anti-","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Injunction Act’s plain terms.","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"Even then, Devon’s proposed stay is not barred by the Anti-Injunction","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"Act. It would be “necessary in aid” of [this Court’s] jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"§ 2283. As Griggs teaches, when an issue is appealed, the district court is","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"“divest[ed] . . . of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"appeal.” Coinbase, 599 U.S. at 740 (citing Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58). Jurisdic-","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"tional concerns animated the foregoing principle: It “grew from the general","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"understanding that a federal district court and a federal court of appeals","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously.” City of","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Brunswick, 184 F.4th at 1239 (citing Coinbase, 459 U.S. at 58) (internal quo-","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"tation marks omitted). Coinbase extended that principle to protect appellate","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"jurisdiction from parallel district court proceedings pending a § 16(a) appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"Id. And this Court, alongside the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, now extends","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"that principle to protect appellate jurisdiction from parallel state court","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Therefore, an automatic stay here is “necessary in aid” of this court’s","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"jurisdiction. The Anti-Injunction Act, in turn, does not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"The motion for stay, pending appeal, of the district court’s order of","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"remand is GRANTED.","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"Case: 26-30505 Document: 58-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/05/2026","paragraph_id":"para_440"}],"word_count":4352,"cites":["459 U.S. 56","599 U.S. 736","608 U.S. 1","415 U.S. 1","556 U.S. 418","590 U.S. 83","84 F.4th 362","732 F.3d 479","128 F.4th 265","184 F.4th 1230","760 F.3d 414","278 F.3d 426","674 F.2d 453"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"c14970fdb94b8b6e0d15cba1420866be2e9b0ba1ab5d139f2f011adbcf61b470","source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-30505-CV0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-12T20:52:01.967+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","name":"United States v. Chaney","decided":"2026-10-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-23-30454-2026-10-19"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","name":"Banner v. Wright","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-30381-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","name":"GH America v. Fohn","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50879-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","name":"McCain v. Mary Mahoney's","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-60663-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","name":"Consumers' Research v. FCC","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-60535-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","name":"Seacor Marine v. GOL","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-30021-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","name":"Civelli v. Mulacek","decided":"2026-10-13","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-20183-2026-10-13"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","name":"United States v. Tekippe","decided":"2026-10-12","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-30528-2026-10-12"},{"id":"us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","name":"Gakou v. Warden","decided":"2026-10-10","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-10925-2026-10-10"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","name":"Hogan v. FCI, La Tuna Case Mgr","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-50315-2026-10-09"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"c14970fdb94b8b6e0d15cba1420866be2e9b0ba1ab5d139f2f011adbcf61b470","recomputed_sha256":"c14970fdb94b8b6e0d15cba1420866be2e9b0ba1ab5d139f2f011adbcf61b470","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T18:51:14.925Z"}},"hash":"sha256:91e6ebc8c0e9a7a9948e7d82ad5508afa1456e899ff82f12823c52c64552c7ed","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T18:41:34","content_hash":"sha256:91e6ebc8c0e9a7a9948e7d82ad5508afa1456e899ff82f12823c52c64552c7ed","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T19:51:15.401Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca5-26-30505-2026-10-06","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b32c2f2c59e72606553f98137dbd72a4","response_hash":"sha256:91e6ebc8c0e9a7a9948e7d82ad5508afa1456e899ff82f12823c52c64552c7ed"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T07:02:59.796Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca5-26-30505-2026-10-06&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":19850}}