Stephen Andrew Higginson

How Judge Higginson rules, drawn from 54 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2011-11-02
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
Harvard University (A.B., summa cum laude, 1983); University of Cambridge (M.Phil., 1984); Yale Law School (J.D., 1987)
Signed orders read
54

How Judge Higginson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Starbucks v. NLRB, the panel required the agency to apply the legal test governing coercion under the totality of the circumstances, rather than treating a discovery-balancing rule as the liability standard.

“For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT Starbucks’ petition for review, DENY the Board’s cross-application to enforce, VACATE the Board’s order, and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Procedural preferences

In Hall v. UiPath, Judge Higginson treated the appellant's failure to challenge an independent summary-judgment rationale in the opening brief as forfeiture and did not reach the alternative causation issue.

“Because Hall has forfeited any challenge to UiPath’s proffered rationale, which is an independent basis for summary judgment on his retaliation claim, we need not reach Hall’s challenge to causation.”

In Arnesen v. Raimondo, he followed the court's review-first principle by remanding a newly developed ratification issue for considered treatment by the district court before addressing the constitutional questions.

“We therefore REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

He independently polices federal-question jurisdiction even when the parties do not dispute it. A state cannot invoke federal jurisdiction merely to obtain advance validation of its own law against anticipated federal objections; comity leaves those questions to arise through proper enforcement or injunctive litigation.

“Franchise Tax Board therefore reinforces comity among federal and state courts and mandates dismissing Texas's declaratory relief action.”

When appointed counsel seeks to withdraw from a non-English-speaking client's appeal, he requires meaningful notice in a language the client understands. Counsel must convey the brief's substance, the right to respond or seek new counsel, and the likely consequence of dismissal.

“Because counsel communicated to Moreno-Torres, in a language Moreno-Torres understands, the substance of the Anders brief and Moreno-Torres’s rights under Anders, this case no longer implicates due process concerns.”

He treats a knowing plea agreement as dispositive when it assigns restitution factfinding to the court. That waiver allowed the panel to leave an otherwise open Sixth Amendment question for a case in which it was actually preserved.

“Here, Luna Caudillo explicitly waived any Sixth Amendment challenge to the district court’s restitution award in his plea agreement by agreeing that ‘the [c]ourt will determine the amount of full restitution to compensate all victim(s).’”

Cautions

A restitution figure must be supported by actual loss evidence rather than judicial experience. If the government failed to build that record initially, it generally does not receive a second evidentiary opportunity on remand absent identified special circumstances.

“The government generally may not present new evidence on remand when reversal is required due to the failure to present evidence originally.”

Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute remains an extreme sanction, but he will affirm it after a clear multi-year delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and unsuccessful lesser measures such as continuances, warnings, and fee awards.

“Here, we find that there is a clear record of delay, and that lesser sanctions proved futile.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Texas v. Travis County
17-50763 · 2018-12-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Consequently, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal. Because we find that the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, we need not reach the district court's Article III standing analysis.”

Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
17-30371 · 2018-03-16
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Avondale invoked the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and removed to the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court remanded, holding that Avondale failed to show the required ‘causal nexus’ to support federal jurisdiction. We affirm.”

Jenkins v. Hall
17-60043 · 2018-12-13
Habeas petition (appellant) Denied

“After exhausting his state court remedies, Jenkins filed a § 2254 petition, which the district court denied. We affirm.”

Montalto v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
18-60274 · 2020-01-21
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“Because the district court made no ‘actual finding[s] of professional misconduct,’ United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 579 (5th Cir. 2011), the appeal is DISMISSED.”

United States v. Munoz-Navarro
14-10441 · 2015-10-21
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing.”

United States v. Illies
15-30112 · 2015-11-02
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“That disagreement is insufficient to overcome the pre[sumption of reasonableness].”

United States v. Moreno-Torres
13-40205 · 2014-09-30
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is [discharged, and the appeal is dismissed].”

United States v. Ratliff
12-50108 · 2013-06-19
Habeas petition (appellant) Granted

“We VACATE the COA and REMAND for clarification as to whether Ratliff has made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and is entitled to a COA on that issue.”

Davison v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
12-60147 · 2013-03-29
Appeal (appellant) Moot / procedural

“we GRANT Huntington's motion to dismiss summarily the appeal, and DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution.”

Tewari De-Ox Systems, Inc. v. Mountain States/Rosen, L.L.C.
13-50956 · 2014-07-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the district court was correct to find complete diversity between Tewari and Appellee Mountain States/Rosen, LLC (‘MTSR’), we AFFIRM.”

Lopez v. Stephens
14-70025 · 2015-04-06
Habeas petition (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's order finding Lopez competent to waive federal habeas proceedings.”

Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.
14-30426 · 2015-07-23
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Dixon has failed to state a claim for relief under the CLA. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated. Higginson had no prior judicial service (AUSA in the District of Massachusetts and Eastern District of Louisiana; Loyola law professor) before his 2011 elevation.

Draft for Judge Higginson with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Higginson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Higginson's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace