Swear on the Stand

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses a lawsuit filed by Dennis B. Roberson against several law enforcement officers following his arrest. The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of Roberson’s claims, which included allegations of unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force, and property damage. According to the document, the officers maintained qualified immunity because they possessed probable cause to arrest Roberson for interfering with their official duties and resisting their efforts. The judges concluded that the physical force applied during the encounter was legally reasonable given Roberson's noncompliance and physical resistance. Furthermore, the court rejected claims against bystander officers and ruled that the plaintiff had forfeited his property damage claims by failing to argue them properly in earlier proceedings.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding Hector Xavier Cortez, who sued the Department of State after his passport applications were repeatedly rejected. The government denied his requests because of a conflicting Mexican birth certificate and suspicions surrounding the medical attendant who recorded his Texas birth. The court ultimately dismissed his claims, ruling that his primary legal challenge was time-barred by a five-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the judges determined that alternative legal pathways, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, were unavailable because specific statutes already provided a remedy. The ruling concludes that Cortez failed to prove his right to citizenship or provide sufficient evidence to overcome the administrative denials.

This episode details a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a lawsuit filed by Brittany Morris against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Morris sued for negligence after a federal probation officer promised to protect her from her violent ex-boyfriend but failed to expedite an arrest warrant, resulting in an attack that left Morris a quadriplegic. While a lower court initially dismissed the case by citing a legal exception for misrepresentations, the appellate court reversed this ruling. The judges determined that the officer’s failure to perform the operational task of securing the warrant was a distinct act of negligence not shielded by government immunity. Consequently, the court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, emphasizing that the failure to act after promising safety was not a protected discretionary policy decision.

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals details the reversal of a lower court's decision to dismiss fraud charges against Sade Kuyoro. The defendant was originally accused of disaster relief fraud involving Hurricane Harvey funds, but the district court dismissed the indictment after the government failed to timely disclose recoupment letters and details regarding a property inspector. However, the appellate court determined that these late disclosures did not constitute Brady violations because the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced and could have discovered the information through reasonable diligence. The ruling emphasizes that dismissing an indictment is an extreme sanction that was not warranted here, especially since the trial judge found no malicious intent by prosecutors. Consequently, the appellate court ordered the reinstatement of the indictment to allow the criminal case to proceed.

This episode from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses a complex international child custody battle under the Hague Convention. The court affirms a district court’s order to return two children to Canada, determining that their long-term residence there established it as their habitual residence despite the mother’s earlier claims that the move was temporary. While the court acknowledges the mother's inconsistent litigation tactics, it concludes that the father wrongfully retained the children in Texas in violation of Canadian custody rights. However, the appellate court vacates a preliminary injunction that attempted to bar Texas judges from hearing the case, citing principles of international comity. A dissenting opinion argues that the mother's deceptive conduct should have triggered judicial estoppel to prevent her from shifting the legal venue to Canada.

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses a lawsuit against American Airlines following the tragic death of a teenager during an international flight. The plaintiff sought to hold the airline liable under the Montreal Convention, arguing that the crew's ineffective medical response and a malfunctioning defibrillator (AED) constituted a compensable "accident." The court affirmed that a poor medical response or a deviation from internal policy does not qualify as an accident under international treaty standards. However, the judges reversed the lower court's ruling regarding the AED failure, finding that a non-functional device would violate FAA regulations and could be seen as an unusual event. Consequently, the court allowed the claims specifically related to the defibrillator malfunction to proceed to trial while dismissing the breach of contract and general negligence theories.

This episode discusses a judicial order and subsequent opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Edward Lee Busby’s stay of execution. The court issued a temporary stay pending a Supreme Court decision in Hamm v. Smith, which is expected to clarify how multiple IQ scores and intellectual disability should be evaluated in capital cases. Judge Higginson argues that a pause is necessary to ensure the correct constitutional standards are applied, noting that both parties previously agreed Busby was disabled. In contrast, Judge Richman dissents, asserting that the state court's factual findings—which rejected Busby’s disability claim despite expert testimony—should be given legal deference. Judge Graves also dissents, emphasizing that every medical expert in the case identified Busby as intellectually disabled, making his execution a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ultimately, the case highlights a sharp judicial divide over the weight of expert medical consensus versus trial court recollections in death penalty appeals.

In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit involving allegations of employment discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff, a former firearms supervisor at the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, argued she was fired based on her gender and in response to her internal complaints. However, the court determined she failed to prove a prima facie case of sex discrimination because she was replaced by another woman and could not identify similarly situated male colleagues who were treated better. Furthermore, the judges found no evidence that the employer's reasons for termination were pretextual, noting a documented history of insubordination, poor performance, and dishonesty. Ultimately, the court concluded that the laboratory had legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for its actions, thereby affirming the summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals details the court's decision to suspend federal regulations that allowed the abortion drug mifepristone to be prescribed online and delivered by mail. The state of Louisiana challenged the FDA, arguing that the agency bypassed essential safety protocols and ignored the drug’s financial and legal impact on states with abortion bans. While a lower court initially refused to stop the regulations, this appellate ruling found that Louisiana is likely to succeed because the FDA admitted to lacking sufficient data when it removed in-person medical visit requirements. The court determined that the public interest is best served by pausing these distribution methods while the agency completes a comprehensive safety review. Consequently, the court granted a stay pending appeal, effectively reinstating stricter oversight on how the medication is dispensed nationwide.

This episode details the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to deny a rehearing for Jamaion Wilson, who was convicted of possessing a machine gun. Although the court upheld the conviction, the judges issued conflicting opinions regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and the validity of existing circuit precedents. Judge Willett acknowledged potential issues with how these laws align with the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause, yet argued that this specific case was a poor "vehicle" for change because the defendant failed to raise those specific arguments. Conversely, Judge Ho and Judge Oldham dissented, contending that current restrictions on machine guns lack historical justification and conflict with Supreme Court standards. Ultimately, the records illustrate a deep judicial divide over whether modern federal weapons bans can be reconciled with the Constitution’s original meaning.