The Crime Victims' Rights Act makes mandamus the victims' route to the court of appeals. In March 2026 the Fifth Circuit denied the families' petitions against the dismissal of the Boeing prosecution.
The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, gives crime victims enforceable rights in federal criminal cases and makes a petition for a writ of mandamus their way to seek appellate review. The prosecution of The Boeing Company over the certification of the 737 MAX has produced two rounds of victims' petitions in the Fifth Circuit. The second, decided in March 2026, shows what the statutory writ can and cannot accomplish once the government decides to end a case.
The statutory writ
The Act lists victims' rights, including the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case, the right to be treated with fairness, and the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. If the district court denies relief, a victim may petition the court of appeals for mandamus under § 3771(d)(3), which directs the court to take up and decide the petition forthwith and, since a 2015 amendment, to apply ordinary standards of appellate review rather than the demanding standard that governs most petitions under FRAP 21. The general framework is set out in The Crime Victims' Rights Act and Its 72-Hour Clock.
The first round
Families of those killed in the 2018 and 2019 crashes challenged the 2021 deferred prosecution agreement on the ground that they had not been consulted. In In re Ryan, 88 F.4th 614 (5th Cir. 2023), the Fifth Circuit held that mandamus was premature at that stage, while emphasizing the courts' continuing responsibility under the Act. The district court had earlier found that the families qualified as crime victims.
The 2025 dismissal and the second round
After the district court rejected a proposed plea agreement in December 2024, the Department of Justice entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Boeing on May 29, 2025, and moved to dismiss the charge. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), dismissal requires leave of court. On November 6, 2025, the district court granted the motion; the Department's case page posts the order. Families filed mandamus petitions on November 13, 2025, and the Fifth Circuit heard argument in February 2026.
On March 31, 2026, in In re Ryan, Nos. 25-11253 and 25-11254, the Fifth Circuit denied the petitions. It agreed with the district court that the Department had not violated the families' rights under the Act: it had conferred with them before entering into the non-prosecution agreement and had treated them with the fairness the statute requires. The families' argument that defects in the earlier agreement carried into the 2025 resolution did not change that conclusion.
What the case shows
- The right to confer is not a right to decide. The Act requires consultation and fairness; it does not give victims a veto over the government's charging decisions.
- Rule 48(a) review is narrow. A court asked to grant leave to dismiss looks for bad faith or a clear departure from the public interest; it does not substitute its judgment for the prosecutor's. That limits what a victim's petition can achieve against a dismissal, as discussed in Plea Agreements and Dismissals.
- Timing matters. The first petition failed as premature, the second on the merits. A victim's petition is strongest when it targets a specific statutory right at the point it is denied.
Mandamus in the civil and immigration setting follows a different standard; examples of individual petitions litigated to a result are collected in Notable Cases.
Key points
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), victims seek appellate review by mandamus, decided under ordinary appellate standards.
- In re Ryan, 88 F.4th 614 (5th Cir. 2023), held a challenge to the 2021 deferred prosecution agreement premature.
- The district court granted the government's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the Boeing charge on November 6, 2025.
- On March 31, 2026, the Fifth Circuit denied the families' petitions, finding that the Department conferred with them and treated them fairly.
- The Act secures consultation and fairness, not a veto over the decision to dismiss.
Links in this article to Mandamus.com point to the site of a law practice in the same network as this publication. They are identified here so that the reader can tell a publication from a practice before following them; see the editorial policy.