Swear on the Stand

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding a dispute between the Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association and the Louisiana Board of Ethics. The conflict originated when the board ruled that the union could not fund legal counsel for members while a union officer served on the Fire Civil Service Board, prompting a lawsuit over First Amendment rights. However, the appellate court determined that the case became moot following the voluntary resignation of the officer from his board position. Because this change in circumstances resolved the ethical conflict, the court found that a live controversy no longer existed for judicial review. Consequently, the court vacated the preliminary injunction previously granted to the union and ordered the case to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In this judicial opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court addresses a legal challenge against the Maritime Administration (MARAD) regarding the approval of a deepwater port project. The petitioner, an environmental group called Better Brazoria, argued that the agency violated the Deepwater Port Act by improperly defining the "application area" for the Texas GulfLink project to exclude its subsea pipelines. By excluding these pipelines, the agency avoided a statutory conflict with a nearby competing port, even though the law requires only one such facility per designated area. The court ruled that the statute’s definition of a deepwater port explicitly includes its pipelines, meaning they must be considered part of the protected site. Consequently, the court vacated the approval of the project, finding that the agency’s narrow geographic designation was contrary to federal law. This decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory definitions and limits agency discretion in the licensing of offshore energy infrastructure.

This episode discusses an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the legality of Texas Senate Bill 1. The court reversed a lower court's decision that had previously blocked several sections of the law intended to enhance election integrity. The judges determined that the challenging parties lacked legal standing because they could not prove a substantial risk of future harm or a valid diversion of resources. Furthermore, the court ruled that the identification, voter assistance, and compensation provisions did not violate federal disability laws. Ultimately, the ruling emphasizes the state's authority to implement measures designed to prevent voter fraud without judicial interference.

In the case of Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the tax liability of partners within a limited liability limited partnership. The central dispute involves the federal definition of a "limited partner" under 26 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(13), which determines whether partnership income is exempt from self-employment taxes. The court rejected a prior "passive investor" standard, ruling instead that the term's original public meaning refers to any partner who does not play a significant role in managing or running a business. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the Tax Court’s previous judgment and remanded the case to determine if the specific partners involved met this definition. A dissenting opinion argued that the ruling creates a tax loophole and ignores established legal principles that characterize limited partners strictly as passive investors.

In this legal opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms a significant financial sanction against NexPoint Real Estate Partners for abusing the bankruptcy process. The court found that the company, formerly known as HCRE, filed a baseless proof of claim involving a property investment project and pursued it through years of bad faith litigation. Evidence revealed that the company’s leaders knew the claim was meritless but used it as a tactical maneuver to shield assets from creditors and avoid depositions. Furthermore, the appellant misrepresented legal conflicts and attempted to withdraw its claim only when discovery became unfavorable. Ultimately, the court ruled that clear and convincing evidence justified the bankruptcy court's use of its inherent power to penalize such deceptive conduct.

This legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit details the failed appeal of Terrance Morgan, whose supervised release was revoked following multiple violations. While on supervision, Morgan failed several drug tests, neglected to report to his probation officer, and was convicted of domestic battery. Although Morgan successfully finished a substance abuse program and sought a sentencing exception, the district court determined that his escalating pattern of violence necessitated imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the lower court properly considered the facts and that any minor procedural errors regarding sentencing guidelines were harmless. Ultimately, the court upheld the eight-month prison sentence, emphasizing the necessity of protecting the public from further harm.

This episode details a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the capital murder conviction of Brittany Marlowe Holberg. The court primarily addresses whether the state of Texas violated constitutional disclosure requirements by failing to reveal the informant status of a witness who provided testimony about Holberg’s confession. While the defense argued that this suppressed information was critical for impeachment, the majority opinion concludes that the evidence of Holberg’s guilt was so overwhelming that the nondisclosure did not meet the legal threshold of materiality. Consequently, the court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act bars federal relief because the state court's prior rejection of the claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Dissenting opinions within the text challenge this conclusion, suggesting that the witness's testimony was a pivotal factor in the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. Overall, the sources provide a dense legal analysis of the tension between prosecutorial obligations and the high bar for overturning state convictions in federal court.

This episode outlines a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the deportation of Peniel Olibris, a Haitian citizen and U.S. permanent resident convicted of smuggling firearms to Haiti. The court’s majority upheld a ruling that Olibris is removable under federal laws prohibiting the unlawful export of goods, rejecting his argument that such statutes should only apply to specific national security threats like espionage. Additionally, the court denied his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding his fears of being killed by Haitian gangs upon return were too speculative and generalized to merit relief. A dissenting opinion argues that the majority’s interpretation is overly broad, suggesting the law was intended only for crimes that directly jeopardize public safety or national security. Ultimately, the court affirmed the prior decisions, maintaining that his criminal conviction for gun trafficking satisfies the plain text requirements for removal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion affirming the denial of citizenship claims for an uncle and nephew born in Mexico. The appellants argued that they inherited American citizenship from an ancestor born in Kansas, but the court ruled they failed to meet the statutory physical presence requirements mandated by federal law. Specifically, the court rejected the constructive-presence doctrine, asserting that judges cannot create equitable exceptions to naturalization rules established by Congress. Furthermore, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction over various additional claims, including those for money damages and habeas corpus relief, because the plaintiffs are legally considered aliens. The opinion also criticized the appellants' legal counsel for including fabricated case citations and significant factual inaccuracies in their filings. A concurring opinion emphasized that the power to define citizenship rests solely with the political branches rather than the judiciary.

This 2026 legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses whether a vessel owner can limit financial liability following a maritime accident. The case involves a commercial workboat, the M/V MS Adalyn, which ran aground on the Alabama River while transporting eight employees of a dredging company. Central to the dispute is the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, which typically protects shipowners but contains a specific exception for covered small passenger vessels. The court had to determine if the injured workers qualified as passengers for hire, even though they did not personally pay for their transport. Ultimately, the judges ruled that indirect consideration paid by an employer satisfies the statutory definition, categorizing the workers as passengers. Consequently, the court affirmed that the owners are denied the protection of the liability limitation because the vessel fits the small passenger craft exception.