The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for panel rehearing filed by James Devins, a pro se plaintiff challenging the State Department's denial of a visa for a foreign student he sought to sponsor under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court simultaneously withdrew its prior panel opinion and substituted a new decision in the case *Devins v. Armstrong*.
The case centers on Devins' February 2025 lawsuit against John Armstrong, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, filed in his official capacity. Devins, who represents himself without an attorney, brought the action under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that provides heightened protection for religious exercise against government interference.
According to court documents, Devins challenged the denial of a visa for a foreign student he sought to sponsor, claiming the denial violated RFRA protections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when substantially burdening a person's religious exercise.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed Devins' complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court based its dismissal on the doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, which prevents parties from relitigating claims that have already been finally adjudicated.
The district court's decision to apply res judicata stemmed from its repeated determinations in prior actions that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Devins' claims. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to specific subject matter. When a court lacks this fundamental authority, it cannot proceed to the merits of a case.
On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges King, Higginson, and Wilson reviewed the district court's decision. Circuit Judge Cory T. Wilson authored the court's opinion, which affirmed the dismissal of Devins' claims while reversing the district court's decision to dismiss with prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling represents a nuanced approach to the case. While the appeals court agreed that Devins' claims should be dismissed, it found that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice prevents a plaintiff from refiling the same claims, while a dismissal without prejudice allows for potential refiling under appropriate circumstances.
The court's decision to reverse the dismissal with prejudice and remand the case suggests that while Devins' current claims may not survive legal scrutiny, he may have the opportunity to refile his complaint if he can address the jurisdictional or other deficiencies that led to the original dismissal.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by pro se litigants in federal court, particularly when challenging government actions related to immigration and visa determinations. Pro se plaintiffs, who represent themselves without legal counsel, often encounter procedural hurdles and jurisdictional complexities that can prove difficult to navigate.
The involvement of the Bureau of Consular Affairs in this dispute underscores the intersection of immigration law and religious freedom claims. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, part of the State Department, is responsible for visa services and determining the eligibility of foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States.
The Fifth Circuit's decision to withdraw and substitute its prior opinion, originally issued in 2025 and reported at 161 F.4th 922, indicates that the court found it necessary to clarify or correct aspects of its earlier ruling. Such substitutions typically occur when courts identify errors or wish to provide additional clarification on legal issues.
The case originated in the Western District of Texas under case number 5:25-CV-178-ESC before proceeding to the Fifth Circuit on appeal. The Fifth Circuit case number is 25-50713, and the court filed its order denying rehearing on Feb. 12, 2026.
Moving forward, the remand to the district court will allow for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's guidance. While Devins' petition for panel rehearing was unsuccessful, the reversal of the dismissal with prejudice provides some procedural relief that may allow him to pursue his claims in a different form or after addressing the jurisdictional concerns that have repeatedly plagued his litigation efforts against the State Department.