Swear on the Stand

This episode details a legal appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a personal injury lawsuit filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case involves a Customs and Border Protection agent who struck a pedestrian with his vehicle while leaving a station to pick up donated supplies for a union-related errand. Initially, a lower court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling the agent was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that material questions of fact exist regarding whether the agent was on a "special mission" that benefited his employer. The court concluded that a jury must determine if the agent’s union duties and the specific errand fell under his official responsibilities. Consequently, the case has been remanded for further trial proceedings to resolve the dispute over federal liability.

This legal opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses a consolidated challenge by pharmaceutical companies against Louisiana’s Act 358, which prohibits manufacturers from restricting the delivery of discounted drugs to contract pharmacies. The court explores the 340B Drug Pricing Program, a federal initiative designed to help vulnerable patients access affordable medication through safety-net healthcare providers. While drug makers argued that the state law was preempted by federal authority and violated constitutional protections like the Takings Clause and Contracts Clause, the court rejected these claims. The judges determined that the federal government’s silence on delivery logistics leaves states free to exercise their traditional police powers to regulate drug distribution. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling, upholding Louisiana's right to prevent manufacturers from interfering with local pharmacy arrangements. This decision reinforces the ability of states to supplement federal healthcare programs to protect public health and consumer interests.

This legal opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses a long-standing property dispute between 20100 Eastex, L.L.C. and Saltgrass, Incorporated regarding restrictive covenants on land in Texas. The central conflict involves whether a Reciprocal Easement Agreement required Eastex to obtain written permission from Saltgrass before demolishing an existing building to construct a new restaurant. While Eastex argued the contract only governed areas affecting shared easements, the court relied on the uncontroverted testimony of the original drafter to determine the restrictions applied to all new construction on the parcels. Ultimately, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Saltgrass, ruling that the parties' original intent was clearly established by the evidence. Furthermore, the court remanded the case for the calculation of appellate attorney fees, finding that Saltgrass was the contractually entitled prevailing party.

This case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses legal challenges to the No Surprises Act, a federal law designed to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. The court primarily examines the Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA), which serves as a benchmark for determining how much insurers must pay out-of-network providers. The majority ruling finds that federal agencies acted unlawfully by including "ghost rates"—placeholder fees for services never actually performed—and by excluding bonus and incentive payments from the QPA calculation. However, the court upheld the exclusion of single-case agreements from the data, noting these one-off emergency contracts do not represent typical market rates. Ultimately, the court ordered that the invalid portions of the regulations be vacated and sent back to the agencies for correction. Additional concurring and dissenting opinions debate the procedural methods of notice-and-comment rulemaking and the broader constitutional authority of courts to strike down agency rules.

This case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses a legal challenge brought by several states against the Department of Energy regarding new efficiency standards for household cooking appliances. The court primarily examined the agency's use of a Direct Final Rule, a procedural shortcut intended only for noncontroversial regulations that have achieved broad consensus among stakeholders. The judges determined that the Department overstepped its authority by bypassing public notice and comment despite significant opposition and a lack of representative support from the states. Furthermore, the court rejected the agency's attempt to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the timeframe for judicial review begins only after the agency finalizes its decision to uphold the rule. Ultimately, the court granted the petition for review, finding that the Department failed to prove the regulations were economically justified or followed proper statutory safeguards.

This 2026 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling addresses the mandatory detention of three noncitizens who lived in the United States for over a decade despite never being lawfully admitted. The Department of Homeland Security argued that under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, these individuals must be detained without bond throughout their removal proceedings. However, the court's majority held that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects all persons within the country’s borders regardless of their legal status. The judges concluded that the government cannot hold residents for more than 90 days without a bond hearing to assess their dangerousness or flight risk. While the ruling does not halt their actual deportations, it confirms that physical presence and established community ties entitle individuals to basic constitutional protections against indefinite imprisonment. A dissenting judge argued that Congress's plenary authority over immigration should allow for mandatory detention without extra-statutory hearings for those never officially admitted.

This episode from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals details the judicial review of Paul Anthony Williams's sentence following his guilty plea for illegal firearm possession. The court examined whether a prior California robbery conviction should be classified as a crime of violence, ultimately ruling that the Sentencing Guidelines do not require a specific intent for such a designation. Additionally, the judges addressed Williams's claim that a past drug conviction was invalid for sentencing purposes due to a lack of legal representation. Despite allowing new evidence to be added to the record, the court found no plain error in the original sentencing calculations because of the presumption of regularity afforded to state court proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's 77-month prison sentence.

In this legal opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Ignacio Sanchez Mendoza, III, following his guilty plea for receiving child pornography. The court first examines whether a sentencing enhancement was properly applied based on a prior state conviction, ultimately ruling that the phrase "relating to" in federal law should be interpreted broadly to include the defendant’s previous Texas offense. Additionally, the court reviews a restitution order totaling $94,000 intended for fourteen victims of the defendant’s crimes. While the court affirms the restitution for eleven victims based on detailed evidence of their losses, it vacates the awards for three victims due to an insufficient analysis of proximate cause. Consequently, the case is remanded to the lower court to further evaluate the restitution requirements for those specific individuals.

Urine is the primary sample for drug screening, but its reliability can be undermined by intentional or accidental dilution. These sources explain that laboratories perform specimen validity tests to monitor integrity by measuring creatinine levels, specific gravity, pH, and the presence of oxidizing agents. When a sample has a creatinine concentration below 20 mg/dL, it is classified as dilute, which may mask the presence of illicit substances and lead to false negative results. To combat this, experts recommend creatinine normalization, a mathematical adjustment that accounts for fluid intake to reveal the true concentration of a drug. While diluted specimens can occur for innocent reasons like athletic hydration, they often signal an attempt to manipulate test results. Consequently, organizations are encouraged to establish clear testing policies and use multiple validity checks to ensure the accuracy of their toxicology programs.

In Texas Tobacco Barn, L.L.C. v. HHS, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed whether federal agencies can impose civil penalties without a jury trial. The court vacated a $19,192 fine against a vape manufacturer, ruling that the administrative proceeding violated the Seventh Amendment. While the court upheld the FDA's legal authority to regulate e-cigarettes, it determined that the public-rights exception did not apply to these enforcement actions. The majority found that the penalties were punitive in nature and analogous to common-law suits that traditionally require a jury. Conversely, the dissenting opinion argued that the premarket authorization process is a novel regulatory scheme that falls within the executive's power to manage interstate commerce and public health. This ruling reinforces Article III judicial protections by limiting the government's ability to bypass juries through agency adjudications.