Swear on the Stand

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals details the dismissal of an appeal by Munson P. Hunter, III, who challenged a supervised release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental health medication. Following a Supreme Court remand, the court applied a new "miscarriage of justice" standard to determine if Hunter’s appellate waiver should be bypassed due to egregious error. The court ultimately found that the medication requirement was neither a blatant constitutional violation nor an obvious statutory error, given Hunter's documented history of trauma and mental health struggles. Because the condition was modifiable and aligned with standard judicial practices, the court concluded that no extreme injustice occurred. Consequently, the appeal waiver remained enforceable, leading the court to officially dismiss the case.

This episode contains a Supreme Court opinion from the 2026 case Wolford v. Lopez, which addresses the constitutionality of Hawaii’s firearm regulations. Following the landmark Bruen decision, Hawaii enacted a law prohibiting licensed individuals from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public unless they obtained express authorization from the owner. The Court’s majority ruled this "default to exclude" rule unconstitutional, arguing it imposes a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to self-defense during daily life. Justice Alito’s opinion emphasizes that historical analogues regarding hunting and anti-poaching are not sufficiently similar to justify such broad restrictions on modern commercial spaces. Conversely, the dissenting opinions by Justices Kagan and Jackson argue that the law is a valid application of property rights and the traditional right to exclude. Ultimately, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects a uniform national standard that local customs, such as Hawaii's "Aloha Spirit," cannot diminish.

This episode discusses a 2026 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the capital murder case of Irving Alvin Davis. The court reviewed Davis’s appeal to overturn his death sentence, which followed the brutal sexual assault and killing of a teenage girl. The primary legal issues involved whether the state violated Davis’s First Amendment rights by introducing evidence of his Satanic beliefs and whether his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the evidence of Satanism was relevant to determining future dangerousness and that his attorneys had conducted a sufficient investigation. The panel concluded that Davis failed to meet the rigorous standards required for federal habeas corpus relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals outlines a lawsuit brought by Weston Merriott against the City of Bossier City regarding speech restrictions at public meetings. The court examined whether the city's "Decorum Policy," which forbids "personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks," violates the First Amendment. In its ruling, the court found the policy facially overbroad and unconstitutionally vague because it grants officials too much discretion to silence criticism. The judges also addressed a "secret meeting" held by council members, determining that it likely violated the Louisiana Open Meetings Law. While the court upheld the city's right to restrict "boisterous" behavior, it largely reversed the lower court’s dismissal, allowing Merriott’s civil rights claims to proceed.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FDA's decision to block the sale of menthol-flavored e-cigarette products manufactured by VDX Distro. The court rejected several constitutional and procedural challenges, ruling that the Food and Drug Administration has the legal authority to regulate vaping products under the Tobacco Control Act. Central to the ruling is the "comparative-efficacy standard," which requires companies to prove that flavored e-cigarettes offer a specific public health benefit to adult smokers that outweighs the documented risks of youth addiction. The judges determined that the agency did not act arbitrarily when it found VDX's application and marketing safeguards insufficient to protect minors. Ultimately, the court affirmed that the FDA may use its adjudicatory discretion to prioritize the reduction of nicotine use among young people.

This legal ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses challenges to the Texas SCOPE Act, a law designed to protect minors from harmful social media content. The court determined that the Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law because they are not directly regulated by it and failed to show a substantial risk of imminent censorship. Conversely, the court found that the monitoring and filtering requirement challenged by industry groups is preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally protects digital platforms from being treated as the publisher of third-party content. While the majority focused on federal preemption and standing, a dissenting opinion argued that the law regulates the platforms' own curation methods rather than third-party speech, suggesting it should not be preempted. Ultimately, the court affirmed the injunction against the filtering requirements while vacating the lower court's ruling regarding the student plaintiffs.

This episode discusses is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the case of Talanzo Debrow, who challenged his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. Debrow argued that the federal ban on firearm possession is unconstitutional as applied to him because his previous felony for aggravated criminal damage to property was a non-violent property crime. The court explored whether a historical tradition exists to justify the permanent disarmament of individuals with such specific criminal backgrounds. Ultimately, the majority vacated the lower court's ruling, finding that the government failed to prove that disarming someone with a property-related predicate offense aligns with the nation’s historical firearm regulations. Conversely, a dissenting opinion argued that the conviction should stand because the underlying crime involved foreseeable danger to human life, fitting within the tradition of disarming dangerous individuals.

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit details the appeal of Trayvon Murphy regarding his criminal sentence for conspiracy and robbery. While the court upheld the district court’s decisions on drug quantity calculations, witness credibility, and the standard of proof, it ultimately reversed the sentence based on a technical application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The majority determined that a homicide-based sentencing enhancement was improper because the specific rifle used in a murder was not explicitly cited in Murphy’s indictment. In contrast, a dissenting opinion argued that this interpretation is too narrow and undermines the goal of matching punishment to the severity of the crime. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing without the first-degree murder cross-reference.

In the case of United States v. Palomares, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a felon convicted of transporting illegal aliens can be permanently barred from firearm ownership. While a lower district court initially dismissed the gun possession charges as unconstitutional, the appellate court reversed that decision. The judges determined that alien smuggling constitutes an inherently dangerous felony, placing it within a historical tradition of disarming individuals perceived as threats to public safety. By comparing the risks of human trafficking to those of drug trafficking, the court concluded that the government may legally restrict the Second Amendment rights of such offenders. The ruling emphasizes that the legislative and judicial branches view these crimes as notoriously linked to violence, justifying lifetime disarmament. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings, upholding the federal ban on firearm possession for this class of felons.

In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the convictions and multi-year sentences of Michael and Tiffany Fullerton for their roles in a $3 million COVID-19 relief fraud. The couple conspired to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications by using defunct businesses, fabricated tax records, and stolen identities. The court details how they laundered the stolen funds through complex bank transfers and out-of-state ventures to purchase luxury items like real estate, jewelry, and high-end vehicles. On appeal, the court rejected Michael's challenges to his sentencing enhancements for leadership and sophisticated means, as well as Tiffany’s request for a new trial. The judges concluded that the evidence of their intentional deception was overwhelming, including Michael’s admitted plan to take the full blame for the conspiracy. Despite affirming the primary rulings, the case was remanded solely to fix a clerical error regarding Tiffany’s specific counts of conviction.