Key Points

  • A docketed 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) notice of appeal from a remand of a federal-officer removal automatically stays the remand order for the duration of the appeal.
  • The panel applied the Griggs principle as explained in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, reasoning that letting state proceedings go forward would defeat the point of the appeal.
  • Section 1447(c) does not displace the automatic stay, even after the remand order has been mailed to the state court, because the district court retains jurisdiction to vacate and stay an appealable remand order.
  • The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the stay because the stay divests the state court of jurisdiction, and in any event the stay is necessary in aid of the appeals court's jurisdiction.
  • Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA, Inc. is not overruled, and discretionary stays remain available, though the panel said they will be rare going forward.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that when a defendant appeals an order sending a federal-officer removal case back to state court, the order is automatically put on hold for the length of the appeal, keeping Devon Energy Production Co.'s fight with Louisiana over coastal damage out of state court for now.

A Fifth Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Smith, Southwick and Wilson granted Devon's motion for a stay pending appeal in a published, unsigned order filed Oct. 5. Devon "was entitled to an automatic stay of the district court's remand order once its § 1447(d) notice of appeal was docketed," the panel held, adding that the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that generally bars federal courts from halting state court proceedings, "presents no bar."

The decision aligns the Fifth Circuit with the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits. Defendants that remove state lawsuits by arguing they acted under federal officers now keep those cases out of state court while they appeal a remand, without first persuading a judge to grant a discretionary stay. The panel acknowledged the shift, writing that "going forward, discretionary stays in the § 1447(d) context will be rare."

The case arose when various Louisiana parishes, joined by the state as an intervenor, sued oil and gas companies in state court over damage to the Louisiana coast. Devon, sued by Cameron Parish, removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which allows federal officers and those "acting under" them to move certain suits to federal court. Devon argued the suit challenged its "conservation activities taken while acting in furtherance of the federal government's property interest in the [Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge]," as well as co-defendant Exxon's World War II aviation gasoline production under federal contracts.

Louisiana moved to remand, and Exxon settled and was excused while the motion was pending. On Aug. 19, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled in a closely related case, Parish of Cameron v. Alpine Exploration Co., that "Devon failed to satisfy the 'acting under' element required for federal officer removal because (1) it did not operate under any World War II contracts and (2) it did not act under the federal government through its Refuge conservation activities," according to Devon's brief as quoted in the order. Two days later, the court remanded Devon's case.

Devon appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which makes remand orders in federal-officer removal cases reviewable on appeal. The district court denied Devon's emergency motion to clarify or stay the remand, and Devon asked the Fifth Circuit to recognize an automatic stay.

The panel relied on what courts call the Griggs principle, drawn from the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., under which an appeal divests a trial court "of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski in 2023, the Supreme Court applied that principle to hold that appeals of orders denying motions to compel arbitration automatically stay district court proceedings.

The panel said the same logic governs remand appeals. "The point of Devon's Section 1447(d) appeal—and Section 1447(d) appeals generally—is to adjudicate its right to removal under Section 1442," the panel wrote. Without a stay, it continued, "Devon would be subjected to the jurisdiction of the state court: It would lose the right that it seeks to retain by exercising its § 1447(d) appeal."

Louisiana and Cameron Parish argued that Coinbase involved only federal district court proceedings, while Devon's stay would divest "another sovereign of jurisdiction." The panel answered with its own 2023 decision in Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA, Inc., which recognized that district courts may enter discretionary stays during § 1447(d) appeals. "If discretionary stays are available and comply with federalism, then the same is true about automatic stays," the panel wrote. "Louisiana's argument proves too much."

The state also contended that Plaquemines Parish, which vacated a discretionary stay while citing Coinbase, implicitly rejected automatic stays. The panel said Louisiana "misreads Plaquemines Parish," because the question of automatic stays "was not before us" in that case. In a footnote, it said it was not overruling that decision and that "Discretionary stays remain available."

Louisiana further argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which provides that once a certified copy of a remand order is mailed to the state court "[t]he State court may thereupon proceed with such case," protects the state court's jurisdiction, and that no district court proceedings remained to be stayed after the order was transmitted. The panel said Plaquemines Parish foreclosed both points because a district court keeps jurisdiction to vacate, and therefore to stay, an already-mailed remand order that can be appealed. "Contrary to Louisiana's assertion, there is a valid district court proceeding—a remand—to be stayed. Coinbase controls," the panel wrote.

On the Anti-Injunction Act, which bars federal injunctions against state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments," the panel held there was nothing to enjoin. By stripping the remand order of legal force, "the stay turns off the state court's jurisdictional 'pipeline,' rendering any state court proceedings a nullity in turn," it wrote.

Even if the stay counted as an injunction, the panel said, it would fall within the act's exception for orders "necessary in aid" of the appeals court's jurisdiction.

The panel noted that "Unrelated lower court proceedings may proceed," and it declined to decide Devon's separate argument that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) also automatically stayed the remand.

The Eleventh Circuit decision the panel followed, City of Brunswick v. Honeywell International Inc., is the subject of a certiorari petition filed Sept. 1, 2026, No. 26-289, the order noted.

The order resolves only the stay motion. Devon's appeal of the remand itself, which will decide whether the company properly removed the case under § 1442, remains pending in the Fifth Circuit, and the remand order is stayed "for the duration of its appeal."