The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has initiated proceedings for potential en banc review in *State of Texas v. Bondi*, a case that pits the Lone Star State against the federal government's top employment law enforcement officials. The court filed notice on Jan. 14, 2026, that a member of the court requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc following an August 15, 2025 panel decision.
The case, designated as No. 24-10386, represents a significant state-federal jurisdictional dispute involving Attorney General Pamela Bondi and the entire leadership structure of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Texas serves as the plaintiff-appellee, having apparently prevailed in the lower court proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The federal defendants named in the appeal include Attorney General Bondi in her official capacity, along with the complete EEOC leadership team: Chair Charlotte A. Burrows, Vice Chair Jocelyn Samuels, Commissioners Keith Solderling and Andrea R. Lucas, and General Counsel Christopher W. Lage. The EEOC as an agency and the Department of Justice are also named as defendants-appellants.
The original case began in the Northern District of Texas under case number 5:23-CV-34, indicating the litigation commenced in 2023. Texas achieved a favorable ruling in the district court, prompting thefederal defendants to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court issued its decision on Aug. 15, 2025, but the specifics of that ruling have now triggered a request for the full court's consideration.
An en banc review represents a significant procedural development, as it involves the entire panel of active circuit judges rather than the typical three-judge panel. The Fifth Circuit's en banc court consists of 17 active judges: Chief Judge Elrod and Circuit Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, Douglas, and Ramirez.
The fact that a circuit judge requested a poll on the en banc petition suggests the case involves issues of exceptional importance or that the panel decision may have created significant legal questions worthy of full court review. En banc review is relatively rare and typically reserved for cases involving questions of exceptional importance or when panel decisions conflict with prior circuit precedent.
While the specific legal issues in dispute are not detailed in the available court filings, the involvement of both the Attorney General and the complete EEOC leadership structure suggests the case touches on fundamental questions of federal employment law enforcement authority. The EEOC serves as the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing workplace civil rights laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Texas has increasingly challenged federal authority in various legal domains, and this case appears to represent another front in ongoing federalism disputes. The state's position as plaintiff-appellee indicates Texas initiated the litigation and achieved success in the district court, forcing federal defendants to pursue appellate relief.
The timing of the case, with original litigation beginning in 2023 and the appeal process extending into 2025 and 2026, reflects the complex nature of the underlying legal questions. Employment law disputes involving state-federal jurisdictional questions often require careful analysis of overlapping authorities and enforcement mechanisms.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, making it a frequent venue for challenges to federal authority initiated by conservative state governments. The court's composition, with judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, will bring varied perspectives to any en banc review.
Attorney General Bondi's involvement as the lead federal defendant reflects the Justice Department's role in defending federal agencies against state challenges. The EEOC's inclusion of its entire leadership structure as named defendants suggests the case challenges fundamental aspects of the commission's authority or operations rather than specific enforcement actions.
The petition for rehearing en banc indicates that either the federal defendants or Texas believes the panel decision warrants full court review. Given Texas's favorable position as appellee, the petition likely comes from the federal defendants seeking to overturn or modify the August 2025 panel ruling.
The case's progression through the federal court system demonstrates the ongoing tension between state and federal authority in employment law enforcement. As the Fifth Circuit considers whether to grant en banc review, the decision will determine whether this federalism dispute receives broader judicial attention or stands as resolved by the three-judge panel decision.
The outcome of the en banc proceedings, if granted, could establish important precedent for the scope of federal employment law enforcement authority and states' ability to challenge federal agency actions. The case represents a significant test of the balance between state sovereignty and federal regulatory authority in the employment law context.