Federal Appeals in Texas and Other Parts of the U.S. South

U.S. federal courts are generally organized into district courts, courts of appeals and then the Supreme Court of the United States. The most common federal court that does not fit in this structure is bankruptcy courts, which are below district courts. District courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal government. Appeals from bankruptcy court can go to district court or a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of bankruptcy judges, depending on whether the local federal jurisdiction has set up BAPs. Texas has four federal judicial districts- eastern, northern, southern, and western. I won't go into the boundaries of the districts- they're pretty common-sensical, and you can look them up with the link above.

The courts of appeals for federal district courts are organized into circuits. The Fifth Circuit covers appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Before October 1, 1981, it also included Florida, Georgia and Alabama, but then an Eleventh Circuit was formed for them. It is important to remember if you are citing southern cases from around that time, that Fifth Circuit precedents bind the Eleventh Circuit for cases decided before October 1, 1981. Besides appeals from district courts, the Circuits also hear appeals from some federal agency decisions and from the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Federal jurisdiction is limited. Unless the United States Constitution or a statute allowed by it provides for federal jurisdiction of a matter, the presumption is that federal courts do not have jurisdiction. This contrasts with U.S. state court jurisdiction where there should be some court for nearly any dispute.

Peace Officers Can’t Bring a Drug-Sniffing Dog on Your Porch

The United States Supreme Court held in Florida v. Jardines, (No. 11–564, Mar. 26, 2013) held that allowing a drug sniffing dog to come on to a person’s front porch was itself a prohibited search illegal without a warrant under the fourth amendment. Justice Scalia wrote the main opinion which Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. That opinion held that the kind of permission that people ordinarily give for people to come on their front porch does not include super-human smell-testing. The opinion emphasized that the police’s action violated the homeowner’s property rights. Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion in which she said that she would also have ruled that what the police did violated the defendant’s privacy rights. She was joined in that opinion by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Both of these opinions implied that bringing a drug-sniffing dog on a porch was like using a thermal imaging device on a house from the outside looking for grow lamps like they rejected in Kyllo v. United States in 2001 Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Breyer. They held that when Jardines implicitly gave permission for people to come up on his porch, which included permission that someone might bring a dog on the porch for a short time.

Florida v. Jardines, No. 11–564, (U.S., Mar. 26, 2013)