Swear on the Stand

In this episode, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms a district court decision regarding maritime liens and unpaid towage services. The dispute arose when Louisiana International Marine (LIM) sought payment for towing two barges owned by Trailer Bridge, which had been chartered to a third party that subsequently went bankrupt. The court determined that a valid maritime lien attached to the vessels because LIM provided necessary services without actual knowledge of a "no-lien" clause in the charter agreement at the time of contracting. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act does not require suppliers to perform due diligence to uncover such restrictive clauses. While the court upheld the lien values, it also affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees, maintaining that such costs are not considered "necessaries" under maritime law. Final adjustments to the award accounted for partial recoveries made during bankruptcy proceedings and confirmed the appropriateness of prejudgment interest.

This episode is a formal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the consolidated appeals of James Baldemoro. After serving a ten-year maximum sentence for child pornography, Baldemoro challenged two subsequent revocations of his supervised release that resulted in additional prison time. He argued that these further periods of incarceration were unconstitutional and exceeded statutory limits because he had already completed the maximum term for his original crime. The court rejected his arguments, clarifying that federal law allows for reimprisonment upon violation of supervision terms regardless of the underlying offense's maximum sentence. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgments, ruling that the specialized protections of a criminal trial do not apply to the revocation process.

This episode contains a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that reverses the dismissal of a RICO lawsuit filed by EnvTech, Inc. against Patrick DeBusk, the CEO of USA DeBusk (USAD). EnvTech alleges that DeBusk orchestrated a systemic pattern of trade secret theft by hiring competitors' key employees to steal proprietary chemical cleaning formulas for oil refineries. While a lower court initially dismissed the claims for failing to show DeBusk’s personal involvement or a consistent criminal pattern, the appellate court found the allegations legally plausible. The judges highlighted evidence of DeBusk's direct supervision over the new business line and a suspicious lack of independent research by USAD as indicators of intentional misappropriation. By citing multiple similar lawsuits from other competitors, the court determined that EnvTech sufficiently described a criminal modus operandi rather than isolated incidents. Consequently, the case has been remanded for further proceedings, allowing EnvTech to pursue its racketeering claims against the executive.

This episode details a Supreme Court of the United States decision to vacate a lower court's ruling in the capital case of Gary Richard Whitton. The central dispute involves a Giglio violation concerning a jailhouse informant who provided false testimony about his criminal history during Whitton’s murder trial. While the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the testimony was false, it denied relief by citing post-trial DNA evidence to prove that any error was harmless. The Supreme Court ruled this analysis improper, asserting that evidence never seen by the jury cannot be used to determine if a constitutional error influenced the original verdict. In a sharp dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the error was inconsequential given the other evidence and criticized the Court for prioritizing a "technicality" over more significant cases.

This episode presents the United States Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States, a landmark case concerning the constitutionality of geofence warrants. The Court ruled that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it acquires a person's Location History data from private companies like Google, as individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their physical movements. Justice Kagan's majority opinion argues that this digital tracking provides an intimate window into a person’s life, comparable to the cell-site data protected in the earlier Carpenter ruling. While the Court established that such data collection requires constitutional oversight, it remanded the case to determine if the specific multi-step warrant used to identify Chatrie for a bank robbery was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. Separate opinions reflect deep judicial divisions, with some justices advocating for a property-based approach to digital effects, while dissenters criticized the ruling as an advisory opinion regarding an obsolete technology.

·Jun 16, 2026

In the 2026 Supreme Court case Rutherford v. United States, the Court addressed whether nonretroactive changes to sentencing laws could qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" to grant compassionate release. The legal dispute focused on the First Step Act of 2018, which reduced mandatory penalties for certain firearm offenses but did not automatically apply to prisoners sentenced before its enactment. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett held that a sentencing disparity caused by a change in law is not "extraordinary" because prospective-only amendments are a standard feature of the legal system. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority by issuing a policy statement that allowed judges to consider these disparities as grounds for release. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued that the ruling undermines the Commission’s role and ignores the traditional discretion judges hold to evaluate a defendant's total circumstances. Ultimately, the decision ensures that legislative finality takes precedence over judicial efforts to harmonize past sentences with current standards.

The Supreme Court case of Fernandez v. United States addresses whether a prisoner can seek a sentence reduction through compassionate release by challenging the validity of their underlying conviction. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that extraordinary and compelling reasons for release under 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c) must relate to a defendant’s personal circumstances, such as illness or age, rather than legal or factual errors from their trial. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett explained that prisoners disputing their guilt or the lawfulness of their conviction must use the specific habeas corpus framework provided by 28 U. S. C. § 2255. The Court reasoned that allowing compassionate release to serve as a substitute for postconviction appeals would permit inmates to bypass strict procedural rules and timelines established by Congress. Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, arguing that relief was improper only because no new facts had emerged since sentencing. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson argued that the majority’s ruling creates an atextual restriction on judicial discretion that could prevent truly innocent people from receiving mercy.

This episode contains a Supreme Court opinion from June 2026 regarding the case Abouammo v. United States, which centers on the legal requirements for criminal venue. The dispute arose after Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, was convicted of falsifying a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation under 18 U. S. C. §1519. Although the investigation was based in San Francisco, the actual act of creating the fraudulent invoice took place at the defendant's home in Seattle. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the Sixth Amendment and Article III require trials to be held where the essential conduct of the crime occurred. The Court concluded that because the statute only proscribes the act of falsification, venue is restricted to the location of that act regardless of where the intended effects of the obstruction were felt. Consequently, the Court reversed the appellate ruling, maintaining that the government cannot prosecute a defendant in a remote district simply because a mens rea element connects the crime to that location.

This episode is a Supreme Court syllabus and opinion from the case United States v. Hemani, which addresses the intersection of Second Amendment rights and federal drug laws. The Court ruled that 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3), a statute disarming "unlawful users" of controlled substances, is unconstitutional when applied to individuals based solely on regular marijuana use. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion clarifies that the government failed to provide a historical analogue for such a broad ban, noting that ancestral "habitual drunkard" laws only targeted those who were mentally incapacitated or dangerous. While the decision is narrow and does not invalidate other firearm restrictions, it emphasizes that marijuana users cannot be categorically stripped of self-defense rights without individualized proof of risk. Separate concurrences by Justices Thomas, Jackson, and Alito further explore the limits of the Commerce Clause, the difficulties of the Court's history-based legal framework, and the widespread social acceptance of modern cannabis use.

This 2026 ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluates the constitutionality of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) following a previous remand from the Supreme Court. The court concludes that while recent legislative amendments successfully cured nondelegation issues regarding the Authority’s rulemaking by granting the FTC final policy oversight, the statute's enforcement provisions remain unconstitutional. Specifically, the court finds that the private Authority wields executive powers—such as conducting investigations and issuing subpoenas—without sufficient agency supervision. Additionally, the opinion rejects challenges involving the Appointments Clause, Due Process, and the Tenth Amendment, determining the Authority functions as a private entity rather than a government body. Ultimately, the court declares HISA’s enforcement framework facially unconstitutional because it empowers private actors to perform quintessentially executive functions without being subordinate to a federal agency.