Swear on the Stand

In the legal opinion Barrett v. United States, the Supreme Court addresses whether a defendant can be convicted twice for a single act that violates two overlapping firearm provisions. The case centers on 18 U.S.C. §924(c), which criminalizes using a gun during a violent crime, and §924(j), which adds penalties if that same act causes a death. Applying the Blockburger test, the Court determined that these provisions constitute the same offense because one is a lesser included version of the other. The Court concluded that Congress did not clearly authorize multiple convictions for this conduct, effectively reversing a lower court decision that allowed for separate punishments. Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasizes that without explicit statutory language to the contrary, the law presumes a single offense should yield only one conviction. While the Court focused on statutory construction, a concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch suggests the Double Jeopardy Clause should more broadly prohibit such repetitive convictions regardless of legislative intent.

In the case of Klein v. Martin, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion reversing a lower court's decision to grant a new trial to Charles Brandon Martin. Martin was originally convicted as an accessory to attempted murder, but he later argued that the state had suppressed a forensic computer report that could have impeached a key witness. While the Fourth Circuit believed this nondisclosure violated due process, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court failed to show the required deference to state court findings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The Justices concluded that because of the overwhelming circumstantial and DNA evidence—including a modified Gatorade bottle used as a silencer—the missing report was not material enough to have likely changed the trial's outcome. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that federal judges cannot overturn state rulings simply because they disagree with the opinion-writing style or nuances of the original decision.

In the legal case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court examined whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President authority to impose tariffs during national emergencies. The majority opinion held that the power to regulate importation does not implicitly include the power to tax, requiring instead a clear statement of congressional authorization for such a major economic action. Justice Gorsuch concurred, arguing that this "major questions doctrine" is a traditional rule of statutory interpretation rooted in separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrine. Conversely, Justice Thomas dissented, suggesting that because importing is a privilege rather than a core right, Congress may delegate such trade powers more freely. Justice Kavanaugh also dissented, contending that historical practice and the needs of foreign affairs justify a broader reading of executive discretion. Ultimately, the Court restricted the executive branch from unilaterally levying duties without explicit legislative permission.

In Ellingburg v. United States, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment rather than a civil remedy. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh determined that because the MVRA labels restitution as a penalty, imposes it at sentencing, and mandates its use following a criminal conviction, it is subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. This decision reverses an appellate ruling, confirming that the government cannot retroactively apply the Act's heightened requirements to crimes committed before its passage. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred to argue for a broader historical interpretation of what qualifies as punishment. He suggested that the Court should focus on whether a law redresses a public wrong through sovereign enforcement rather than relying on modern multifactor tests. Ultimately, the sources clarify that statutory labels cannot exempt punitive financial obligations from constitutional protections against retroactive legislation.

This episode details an unsuccessful appeal by Dr. Johnathan Castille, a former special education administrator who sued the Port Arthur Independent School District for wrongful termination. Castille claimed the district retaliated against him for reporting child abuse and cooperating with state investigators, thereby violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's dismissal, ruling that his reports were made as a public employee performing his job duties rather than as a private citizen. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that his procedural due process was violated, as he received a formal hearing and several opportunities to challenge the firing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional rights were infringed upon during the administrative process.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daphnie Newman Boudy against the McComb School District. The legal dispute centers on the district court’s decision to dismiss the case with prejudice after Boudy failed to attend multiple hearings and refused to comply with an order for a mental health examination. While the appellate court acknowledged Boudy's claims of mental and physical illness, it found her behavior to be contumacious, representing a stubborn resistance to judicial authority. The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal, noting that Boudy’s intentional avoidance of court communications and hearings justified the severe sanction. However, the ruling vacated the order requiring her to pay the school district’s attorneys’ fees, remanding that specific issue for further consideration. This document highlights the balance between a litigant's pro se status and the court's power to penalize the waste of judicial resources.

In this episode, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision that had blocked a Texas election integrity law targeting professional ballot harvesting. The court ruled that Section 276.015 of the Texas Election Code is neither unconstitutionally vague nor a violation of First Amendment speech protections. Judge Edith Jones emphasized that states possess a compelling interest in preventing mail-in ballot fraud and ensuring that partisan operatives do not intimidate voters. The panel criticized the use of facial challenges based on hypothetical scenarios, asserting that the statute’s focus on compensated services provides clear notice of prohibited conduct. Additionally, the court found that the Texas Attorney General and Secretary of State were protected by sovereign immunity and were not the correct parties for this specific lawsuit. By reversing the injunction, the court allowed the state to proceed with enforcing its security measures for the electoral process.

In this episode, the Fifth Circuit upheld Louisiana's Act 358, a law prohibiting drug companies from blocking the distribution of discounted medications to contract pharmacies. Several pharmaceutical manufacturers challenged the statute, arguing that it was preempted by federal law and violated various constitutional protections, including the Takings Clause and the Contracts Clause. The court rejected these claims, finding that the state law serves a legitimate public interest in expanding healthcare access without conflicting with the federal 340B Program. Additionally, the judges determined that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and functioned within the state’s traditional police powers. Finally, the court ruled that a private primary care association should not have been allowed to intervene in the case because the state Attorney General already provided adequate representation.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit ruling that affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Marquis Kennedy, a police cadet who died after a rigorous training exercise. The court determined that the City of Arlington and its officers were not liable for constitutional violations, ruling that the mandatory simulation did not constitute an illegal Fourth Amendment seizure. Furthermore, the judges found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant government employees a specific right to a safe workplace or a constitutional guarantee of medical care during training. Because the instructors did not demonstrate a specific intent to harm the decedent, the court held that their actions did not meet the high legal bar of "shocking the conscience." Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that while the death was tragic, the claims were matters of state tort law rather than federal civil rights infractions.

In a significant 2026 ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the government may detain unadmitted immigrants indefinitely without bond while they await removal proceedings. The majority opinion centered on the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, concluding that anyone present in the country without lawful admission is an "applicant for admission" and is legally considered to be "seeking admission." This decision reverses lower court orders that had previously granted bond hearings to individuals living in the U.S. interior, effectively placing them under the same mandatory detention rules as those apprehended at the border. The court dismissed arguments that a different statute, Section 1226, should provide discretionary release, asserting that the text of the law prioritizes detention for those not clearly entitled to entry. A sharp dissent argued that this novel interpretation ignores thirty years of legal precedent and creates a sweeping mandate to imprison millions without historical or statutory justification. This ruling marks a major shift in immigration enforcement, potentially subjecting long-term residents to the same restrictive custody as new arrivals.