Swear on the Stand

This episode is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding a dispute between Exxon Mobil Corporation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The court addressed whether federal law permits OSHA to compel employers to record work-related mental illnesses, specifically focusing on a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis following a refinery explosion. After analyzing the statutory text and historical definitions, the judges concluded that the term "illnesses" in the Occupational Safety and Health Act refers exclusively to physical ailments. Consequently, the court vacated the agency's regulation and the specific penalty against Exxon, ruling that OSHA had exceeded its congressional authority. This decision emphasizes that administrative agencies must stay within the explicit boundaries established by the legislature, regardless of the societal merit of their regulatory goals.

This episode discusses a legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding a high-stakes personal injury lawsuit. The case involves a multi-vehicle collision caused by a KJ Win, Inc. tractor-trailer, resulting in a $2.8 million default judgment after the trucking company failed to respond to the initial suit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting the company's attempt to overturn the judgment under Rule 60(b). The judges determined that the company’s failure to appear was willful because it neglected to maintain an accurate address for service of process. Furthermore, the court ruled that KJ Win forfeited several new arguments regarding defective service and damages caps by failing to raise them during the original district court proceedings. Ultimately, the ruling emphasizes that procedural negligence and the failure to present a timely defense can lead to irreversible legal consequences.

This judicial opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a lawsuit involving a deputy sheriff accused of using excessive force against a detained motorist. The court describes how the officer discharged a high-velocity pepper spray device directly into the plaintiff’s eye at a dangerously close range, resulting in permanent blindness. Although the officer claimed qualified immunity, the court determined that the plaintiff was already handcuffed and restrained in a police vehicle, posing no immediate threat to safety. By comparing the incident to legal precedents, the judges concluded that the officer's actions likely violated clearly established law. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to allow the civil rights case to proceed toward trial.

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit details a judicial review of labor dispute findings involving Starbucks Corporation and the National Labor Relations Board. The case centers on allegations of anti-union misconduct at a California store, including claims that management used coercive threats and interrogations to discourage employees from organizing. The court analyzed whether the termination of an employee, Jason Untaran, was motivated by his union activity or his documented policy violations. Ultimately, the judges issued a split decision, upholding some of the Board's findings regarding unlawful threats while rejecting others due to a lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, the court granted enforcement of certain labor violations but denied the request regarding the wrongful discharge claim.

This legal document detail an appellate court ruling regarding Brenda Brenyah’s lawsuit against Corpus Christi Medical Center for various forms of workplace discrimination. The court affirmed the dismissal of most of her allegations, including those involving disability discrimination and retaliation, finding a lack of evidence or procedural failures. However, the judges reversed the summary judgment specifically regarding Brenyah’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII and Section 1981. They concluded that a jury should evaluate her reports of frequent racial harassment and the alleged inadequacy of the hospital's internal investigation. Consequently, the case has been remanded for further proceedings on those specific issues while the other lower court decisions remain upheld.

In the 2026 case of Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether American corporations and their executives could be held liable for aiding and abetting human rights abuses abroad. The plaintiffs, practitioners of Falun Gong, alleged that Cisco developed surveillance technology specifically designed to help the Chinese government identify and torture them. Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, reversed a lower court ruling by determining that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not permit federal courts to create new causes of action for international law violations. The Court simultaneously ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) lacks the explicit language necessary to support aiding-and-abetting liability. In a sharp dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the decision effectively overrules established precedent and unjustly shields those who facilitate heinous acts from legal accountability. This landmark ruling significantly limits the ability of foreign and domestic plaintiffs to seek redress in U.S. courts for global atrocities.

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit details a lawsuit filed by Jennifer Thompson against the City of Godley and its officials. Thompson, a former city councilwoman, alleges her constitutional rights were violated when she was arrested for tampering with government records—an act she claims was retaliation for her political opposition to the mayor. The appellate court reversed several lower court dismissals, finding that Thompson plausibly argued the arrest lacked probable cause and was based on fabricated evidence. Specifically, the court held that editing a courtesy copy of a meeting agenda did not constitute a crime under Texas law. While some claims against the former mayor and police chief were affirmed for dismissal, the court remanded the retaliation and municipal liability claims for further litigation. Consequently, this ruling reinforces First Amendment protections against using police power to silence political dissent.

In the 2026 case of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Helms-Burton Act allows American nationals to sue Cuban government-owned entities for trafficking in confiscated property without needing to satisfy the specific exceptions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the law’s unique structure and presidential suspension authority clearly indicate a congressional intent to waive sovereign immunity for these agencies. The Court concluded that requiring plaintiffs to meet FSIA standards would effectively nullify the private right of action Congress established to provide remedies for wrongful seizures. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s dissent contended that the Helms-Burton Act lacks the "unmistakably clear" language required to abrogate immunity, suggesting instead that the two statutes should coexist. This landmark decision clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for litigation involving foreign state instrumentalities and property claims tied to the Cuban embargo. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded to allow the litigation against the Cuban companies to proceed.

In the 2026 case of Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether the government must compensate a homeowner for a property's fair market value after a tax foreclosure sale. The petitioner, Michael Pung, argued that receiving only the surplus proceeds from an auction—rather than the home's much higher assessed value—violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. Justice Alito, writing for a nearly unanimous Court, held that the auction price serves as the constitutional baseline for "just compensation," provided the sale is conducted fairly according to historical traditions. The Court reasoned that requiring fair market value would impose unprecedented burdens on tax collection and could potentially bankrupt local jurisdictions. While the Court rejected the broad constitutional demand for market-value payouts, it remanded the case to allow lower courts to investigate whether the specific foreclosure procedures used by the county were fundamentally unfair. Justice Thomas’s concurrence highlighted the troubling facts of the case, noting that the Pungs lost a $194,400 home over a disputed $2,242 tax debt that may not have even been legally owed.

This Supreme Court case, Blanche v. Lau, addresses whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, residents returning from abroad are typically considered already admitted, but an exception exists for those who have committed certain offenses. The Court ruled that the government is not required to prove the commission of a crime at the moment of reentry. Instead, the legal burden may be satisfied during subsequent removal proceedings using evidence like a guilty plea. Consequently, the majority held that a pending criminal charge is sufficient for officials to pause a resident's formal admission status at the border. The dissenting justices argued that this sequence undermines the legal security of green card holders by allowing the government to justify status demotions with post-entry evidence.