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

FILED March 31, 2023 No. 18-11368 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Shannon Daves; Shakena Walston; Erriyah Banks; Destinee Tovar; Patroba Michieka; James Thompson, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; Faith in Texas; Texas Organizing Project Education Fund,

Plaintiffs—Appellants Cross-Appellees,

versus

Dallas County, Texas; Ernest White, 194th; Hector Garza, 195th; Raquel Jones, 203rd; Tammy Kemp, 204th; Jennifer Bennett, 265th; Amber Givens-Davis, 282nd; Lela Mays, 283rd; Stephanie Mitchell, 291st; Brandon Birmingham, 292nd; Tracy Holmes, 363rd; Tina Yoo Clinton, Number 1; Nancy Kennedy, Number 2; Gracie Lewis, Number 3; Dominique Collins, Number 4; Carter Thompson, Number 5; Jeanine Howard, Number 6; Chika Anyiam, Number 7 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts,

Defendants—Appellees Cross-Appellants,

Marian Brown; Terrie Mcvea; Lisa Bronchetti; Steven Autry; Anthony Randall; Janet Lusk; Hal Turley, Dallas County Magistrates; Dan Patterson, Number 1; Julia Hayes, Number 2; Doug Skemp, Number 3; Nancy Mulder, Number 4; Lisa Green, Number 5; Angela King, Number 6; Elizabeth Crowder, Number 7; Carmen White, Number 8; Peggy Hoffman, Number 9; Roberto Canas, Jr., Case: 18-11368 Document: 00516696104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023

No. 18-11368

Number 10; Shequitta Kelly, Number 11 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal Courts at Law,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CV-154

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.* Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge: In a second round of en banc review, we conclude that this case, whose aim was to revise by federal decree the Texas state court procedures for felony and misdemeanor pretrial bail, should never have been brought in federal court. We hold that a string of consistent Supreme Court authority commencing with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971), requires federal courts to abstain from revising state bail bond procedures on behalf of those being criminally prosecuted, when state procedures allow the accused adequate opportunities to raise their federal claims. Recent years saw a surge of interest in criminal procedure reform. Lawsuits have been filed nationwide seeking to mitigate state and local bail bonding requirements.1 One such suit resulted in a decision by this court that

* Judge Ho concurs in the court’s ruling on abstention only, and not in the court’s ruling on mootness. Judge Oldham is recused and did not participate. Judge Douglas was not a member of the court when this case was submitted to the court en banc and did not participate in this decision. 1 See, e.g., H.C. v. Chudzik, No. 5:22-cv-1588 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2022), ECF No. 1; The Bail Project, Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. Dep’t of Ins., No. 1:22-cv-862 (S.D. Ind. May 4, 2022),