Should the Supreme Court reverse this outlier Fifth Circuit case and provide clear guidance to practitioners on when successive Rule 59(e) motions are appropriate?

QUESTION PRESENTED Rule 59(e) establishes a party’s right to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Other circuits have held, where a Rule 59(e) motion is filed to alter a judgment, and a court subsequently issues a new ruling based on “new grounds” that a party has not had an opportunity to challenge, a second Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appeal deadline pending a ruling on the second Rule 59(e) motion. Here, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, which had ruled that a second Rule 59(e) motion addressing the new grounds raised by the district court did not toll the appellate deadline. This view diverges from the other circuits. The question therefore presented is: Should the Supreme Court reverse this outlier Fifth Circuit case and provide clear guidance to practitioners on when successive Rule 59(e) motions are appropriate?