Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Catharina Haynes
2008 - Present
17
Catharina Haynes is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. She joined the court in 2008 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
Early life and education
Born in Melbourne, Florida, Haynes graduated from Florida Institute of Technology with her bachelor's degree in 1983 and from Emory University School of Law with her J.D. in 1986.[1]
Professional career
- 2006-2008: Private practice, Dallas, Texas
- 1999-2006: Judge, 191st District Court, Dallas County, Texas
- 1986-1998: Private practice, Dallas, Texas[1]
Judicial career
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: Catharina Haynes |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 268 days after nomination. |
 Nominated: July 17, 2007
|
| ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified with 1 abstention
|
| Questionnaire: |
| Hearing: February 21, 2008
|
| QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
| Reported: April 3, 2008
|
| Confirmed: April 10, 2008
|
| Vote: Voice vote
|
Haynes was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit by President George W. Bush on July 17, 2007, to a seat vacated by Judge Harold DeMoss, who assumed senior status. The American Bar Association rated Haynes Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination, with 1 committee member abstaining.[2] Hearings on Haynes' nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 21, 2008, and her nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on April 3, 2008. Haynes was confirmed on a voice vote of the U.S. Senate on April 10, 2008, and she received her commission on April 18, 2008.[1][3]
Noteworthy cases
Federal appeals court finds FHFA structure unconstitutional (2018)
On July 16, 2018, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Collins v. Mnuchin that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is unconstitutional because it is led by a single director who is only removable by the president for cause. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Carl Stewart and Judges Catharina Haynes and Don Willett.[4][5]
In Collins v. Mnuchin, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders presented the following complaints:
- A 2012 dividend agreement between the FHFA and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which rendered their shares valueless, exceeded the statutory authority of the FHFA and the Treasury Department.
- The FHFA was unconstitutionally structured because it was headed by a single director who was only removable for cause and it did not depend on congressional appropriations.[4][5]
A district court dismissed the shareholders’ complaints. In a split per curiam decision, however, the Fifth Circuit panel reversed the decision on the grounds that the structure of the FHFA violates the separation of powers because the agency’s director is too insulated from presidential control. The court struck the language from HERA that only allowed the president to dismiss the FHFA director for good cause. Though the panel found the FHFA structure unconstitutional, they upheld the statutory authority of FHFA and Treasury Department to enter into the dividend agreement.[4][6]
Both the plaintiffs and the FHFA filed petitions for rehearing en banc—before the full Fifth Circuit—in August 2018. The court heard arguments en banc on January 23, 2019.[7][8]
In a July 9, 2019, letter, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold for-cause removal protections.[9] The FHFA told the court that the agency’s new director, Mark A. Calabria, had reconsidered the constitutionality of the agency’s structure.[9] The agency’s interim director, Joseph Otting, had decided not to defend the structure of the agency, but Calabria argued that the court should rule that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to create agencies with single directors insulated from presidential control.[9]
SCOTUS reverses Fifth Circuit ruling over forum selection (2013)
On December 3, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit. Judge Catharina Haynes issued a concurring opinion in the case.
In 2009, Atlantic Marine Construction Company (Atlantic) obtained a government contract to build a child development center at Fort Hood, Texas. In constructing the center, Atlantic subcontracted with J-Crew Management (J-Crew) to provide labor and materials. The subcontract agreement contained a clause stating that any legal dispute would be litigated in either a Norfolk, Virginia, city court or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite this clause, J-Crew filed a lawsuit against Atlantic in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that Atlantic failed to pay J-Crew for work the company performed. Atlantic moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the subcontracting agreement required the suit to be brought in Virginia. Failing a dismissal, Atlantic also moved for a transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court denied Atlantic's motions. Atlantic petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case or transfer it to Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the Western District of Texas was the proper venue for the case because the parties entered into and performed the subcontracting agreement in that district.
Judge Catharina Haynes wrote a concurring opinion in the case in which she determined that the district court was wrong but that mandamus relief was not warranted. She wrote,[10]
| “ |
We should not leave the enforcement by specific performance of otherwise valid contractual forum selection clauses to the vicissitudes of virtually unfettered judicial discretion. Absent some compelling countervailing factor (something J-Crew does not even argue is present here), forum-selection clauses such as this one should be and should have been enforced by transfer or dismissal. Thus, while the very high standards for mandamus review coupled with the majority opinion's approach compel my concurrence in the judgment, I conclude that the district court erred. Given the state of the law in this area, I encourage the parties to request review of today's decision by the United States Supreme Court, so it may consider whether this area of the law would benefit from its further guidance.[11] |
” |
Writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that "when parties have agreed to a forum-selection clause, a court should transfer the case to that forum unless there are exceptional factors at work" and that "the party requesting the change of forum should bear the burden of proving that such a change is necessary."[12][13]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 110th Congress," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ United States Congress, PN 766 - Catharina Haynes - The Judiciary," accessed September 10, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Law.com, "Federal Housing Finance Agency, 'Not Accountable to the President,' Deemed Unconstitutionally Structured," July 17, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Reason, "Federal Court Holds FHFA Unconstitutional," July 16, 2018
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "Collins v. Mnuchin," July 16, 2018
- ↑ The National Law Review, "Petitions for Rehearing En Banc Filed in Fifth Circuit Decision Finding FHFA Is Unconstitutionally Structured," September 6, 2018
- ↑ Constitutional Accountability Center, "Collins v. Mnuchin, accessed February 1, 2019
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Federal Housing Finance Agency, "Letter Re: Collins et al. v. Mnuchin et al., No. 17-20364 (en banc oral argument held January 23, 2019)," July 9, 2019
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, In re: Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc., November 19, 2012
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Atlantic Marine Construction Company v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, December 3, 2013
- ↑ Oyez.org, "Atlantic Marine Construction Company v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas," accessed October 11, 2017
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by - |
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit 2008-Present |
Succeeded by - |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 |
Armijo • Bates • Beistline • Blackburn • Bowdre • Bunning • Bury • Caldwell • Camp • Cassell • Cebull • Clement • Clifton • Crane • Eagan • Engelhardt • Friot • Gibbons • Granade • Gregory • Gritzner • Haddon • Hartz • Heaton • Hicks • Howard • Johnson • Jorgenson • Krieger • Land • Leon • Mahan • Martinez • Martone • McConnell • Melloy • Mills • O'Brien • Parker • Payne • Prost • Reeves • Riley • Robinson • Rogers • Royal • Shedd • B. Smith • L. Smith • Walton • Wooten • Zainey | ||
| 2002 |
Africk • Anderson • Autrey • Baylson • Cercone • Chesler • Clark • Collyer • Conner • Conti • Corrigan • Davis • Davis • Dorr • England • Ericksen • Fuller • Gardner • Godbey • Griesbach • Hanen • Hovland • Hudson • Jones • Jordan • Kinkeade • Klausner • Kugler • Leighton • Linares • Moses • Marra • Martinez • Martini • Mays • McVerry • Phillips • Raggi • Reade • Rose • Rufe • Savage • Schwab • Smith • St. Eve • Walter • White • Wolfson | ||
| 2003 |
Adams • Altonaga • Bea • Benitez • Bennett • Boyle • Brack • Breen • Browning • Burns • Bybee • Callahan • Campbell • Cardone • Carney • Castel • Chertoff • Cohn • Colloton • Conrad • Coogler • Cook • Cooke • Crone • Der-Yeghiayan • Drell • Duffey • Duncan • Erickson • Feuerstein • Figa • Filip • Fischer • Fisher • Flanagan • Floyd • Frost • Gibson • Greer • Gruender • Guirola • Hall • Hardiman • Hayes • Herrera • Hicks • Holmes • Holwell • Hopkins • Houston • Irizarry • Jones • Junell • Karas • Kravitz • Martinez • McKnight • Minaldi • Montalvo • Mosman • Otero • Pickering • Prado • Pratter • Proctor • Quarles • Robart • Roberts • Robinson • Rodgers • Rodriguez • Sabraw • Sanchez • Saylor • Selna • Sharpe • Simon • Springmann • Stanceu • Steele • Stengel • Suko • Sutton • Sykes • Titus • Townes • Tymkovich • Van Antwerpen • Varlan • Wake • Wesley • White • Woodcock • Yeakel | ||
| 2004 |
Alvarez • Benton • Boyko • Covington • Diamond • Harwell • Kelley • Schiavelli • Schneider • Starrett • Watson | ||
| 2005 |
Alito • Barrett • Batten • Bianco • Brown • Burgess • Conrad • Cox • Crotty • Delgado-Colon • Dever • DuBose • Griffin • Griffith • Johnston • Kendall • Larson • Ludington • Mattice • McKeague • Neilson • Owen • Pryor • Roberts • Sandoval • Schiltz • Seabright • Smoak • Van Tatenhove • Vitaliano • Watkins • Zouhary | ||
| 2006 |
Besosa • Bumb • Chagares • Cogan • Gelpi • Golden • Gordon • Gorsuch • Guilford • Hillman • Holmes • Ikuta • D. Jordan • K. Jordan • Kavanaugh • Miller • Moore • Shepherd • Sheridan • Smith • Whitney • Wigenton | ||
| 2007 |
Anderson • Aycock • Bailey • Bryant • Davis • DeGiusti • Dow • Elrod • Fairbank • Fischer • Frizzell • Gutierrez • Hall • Hardiman • Haynes • Howard • Jarvey • Jones • Jonker • Kapala • Kays • Laplante • Limbaugh • Lioi • Livingston • Maloney • Mauskopf • Mendez • Miller • Neff • O'Connor • O'Grady • O'Neill • Osteen • Ozerden • Reidinger • Sammartino • Schroeder • Settle • Smith • Snow • Southwick • Suddaby • Sullivan • Thapar • Tinder • Van Bokkelen • Wood • Wright • Wu | ||
| 2008 |
Agee • Anello • Arguello • Brimmer • Gardephe • Goldberg • Jones • Kethledge • Lawrence • Matsumoto • Melgren • Murphy • Scriven • Seibel • Slomsky • Trenga • Waddoups • White | ||
