Swear on the Stand

Daniel W. Swear

Court decisions are complex and difficult to digest. This podcast is designed to educating listeners on current legal decisions in a fun and interesting way. Researched by me and produced with the assistance of AI.

Play

Open in

62 episodes
Avg 43 min
English

Episodes 62

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

Yesterday · 55 min
The Lawsuit Over Secret FEMA Disaster Rules
This appellate court ruling addresses a long-standing legal battle between La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding transparency in disaster relief. LUPE alleged that FEMA systematically violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reading-room provision by relying on unpublished, secret rules to evaluate assistance applications instead of making them publicly accessible online. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal, establishing that FOIA grants federal courts the broad equitable authority to issue prospective injunctive relief that requires agencies to proactively post qualifying documents online for the general public, not just individual requesters. Because factual questions remain regarding whether FEMA's unreleased Individuals and Households Program (IHP) documents actually trigger reading-room obligations, the appellate panel remanded the case for further development by the district court.
Yesterday · 44 min
How the Second Amendment Saved Switchblades
In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, the court evaluated a Second Amendment challenge against the federal restrictions on switchblade knives. The judges determined that switchblades qualify as protected arms, meaning the government bears the burden of proving that the ban aligns with historical regulatory traditions. While the court concluded that the supply chain restrictions under Section 1242 are unconstitutional because the government failed to justify the manner of regulation, it rejected the facial challenge against Section 1243. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the Section 1242 claim, affirmed the dismissal of the Section 1243 claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Yesterday · 45 min
Water Taxi or Floating Office?
This federal appellate case centers on whether a Master Service Agreement between Quality Process Services and Whitney Oil and Gas qualifies as a maritime contract. Because the agreement involved oilfield staffing rather than direct maritime work, the court determined that the contract is non-maritime under standard legal tests. Consequently, state law applies, which invalidates the contested indemnity provision that QPS attempted to enforce. The court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the contract's classification while dismissing the premature appeal regarding attorney fees without prejudice. Ultimately, the ruling highlights that routine vessel transportation used merely to ferry workers to offshore platforms is insufficient to transform a land-based service contract into a maritime one.
Wednesday · 45 min
When the FBI Shot a Bound Hostage
This United States Court of Appeals case addresses a tragic hostage rescue incident where a federal agent accidentally shot and killed the bound hostage, Ulises Valladares, during a tactical operation in Houston, Texas. Following a bench trial, the district court found the government liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act and awarded substantial financial damages and attorney fees to the victim's family, concluding that the agent acted with negligence and that the government's sovereign immunity waiver applied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit majority affirmed the lower court's finding of liability by deferring to the trial judge's credibility determinations regarding eyewitness testimony from inside the room. However, the appellate court reversed the damages award, ruling that the district court improperly inflated the financial totals to accommodate a standalone attorney fee instead of carving fees out of the overall compensation as required by federal law. A dissenting judge strongly disagreed, arguing that the agents acted reasonably during a high-stakes, fast-moving crisis and that the government should have been shielded by the discretionary function exception. Ultimately, the appellate panel remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the original, record-supported damages amount while capping the legal fees at twenty-five percent of that total.
Tuesday · 43 min
How US Courts Denied Afghan Protection
The federal appeals court denied an Afghan native's petitions seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture, alongside requests to reconsider his case or remand it for new evidence. The petitioner, who previously worked for the Afghan Ministry of Education and participated in demonstrations regarding girls' education, argued that he faced a severe probability of torture upon returning to Afghanistan. While the majority concluded that the Board of Immigration Appeals appropriately reviewed the record and acted within its discretion when screening new evidence, a dissenting judge maintained that the matter should have been sent back to an immigration judge for proper factfinding regarding newly introduced Taliban summonses. Ultimately, the court upheld the administrative decisions denying relief because the existing record did not compel a finding that future torture was more likely than not.
Tuesday · 43 min
Why Appeal Waivers Protect Botched Sentences
Following a Supreme Court remand, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated whether an appeal waiver should be set aside for Devin Chaney, who challenged his sentence. Although Chaney argued that his classification as a career offender and the trial court's swift dismissal of his objection constituted a miscarriage of justice, the appellate court disagreed. The panel explained that the Supreme Court's newly established miscarriage-of-justice exception establishes an exceptionally high threshold reserved only for extreme and blatant errors. Because sentencing calculations are inherently complex, routine guideline mistakes do not invalidate an otherwise valid appeal waiver. Consequently, the court upheld the appeal waiver and dismissed Chaney's case.
October 16 · 49 min
How an Unconstitutional Law Silenced Free Speech
In Joy Banner v. Michael Wright et al., the plaintiff appealed a lower court's refusal to grant a new trial following a unanimous jury verdict against her in a First Amendment lawsuit. Banner had been silenced at a public parish meeting after attempting to discuss a pending ethics complaint against the parish president, using a statute that had been ruled unconstitutional nearly a decade prior. Although Banner timely objected throughout the proceedings, the district court denied her motion for a new trial, improperly relying on inadmissible juror statements to conclude that defense counsel's extensive misconduct had no prejudicial impact. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that defense counsel's persistent improper questioning and introduction of banned legal arguments thoroughly permeated the trial and made curative instructions ineffective. Ultimately, the appellate court remanded the case, determining that the sheer volume of misconduct compromised the trial's fairness and necessitated a new trial.
October 16 · 37 min
Texas Blocks Chinese Solar Grid Access
In GH America Energy, L.L.C. v. Fohn, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regime preempts the Texas Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act (LSIPA). GH America Energy, a subsidiary of a Chinese company, argued that LSIPA—which bans certain foreign-owned entities from accessing critical infrastructure like the Texas electric grid—was an unconstitutional intrusion into a field reserved for federal oversight. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that neither conflict preemption nor field preemption applies because CFIUS targets a narrow, mostly voluntary class of corporate transactions while LSIPA governs vital intrastate utility regulation. Emphasizing the presumption against preemption in areas traditionally managed by state police power, the court concluded that the federal and state laws operate harmoniously without direct contradiction.
October 16 · 48 min
Diners Can Sue Over Fake Snapper
The Fifth Circuit considered an appeal regarding whether a customer, Todd McCain, suffered a valid Article III injury after purchasing what he believed was local premium seafood at a restaurant that secretly substituted it with imported frozen fish. Previously, restaurant executives and suppliers pled guilty to a multi-year conspiracy involving the fraudulent sale of dozens of tons of mislabeled fish. The district court initially dismissed the class action lawsuit for lack of standing, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove his specific meals were tainted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, determining that the extensive and systematic nature of the fraud plausibly established both concrete economic injury and a particularized impact. Consequently, the court vacated the denial of leave to amend and remanded the case for further proceedings.
October 16 · 1 hr 11 min
Court Rules FCC Phone Fee Illegal
In this federal appellate court case, the Fifth Circuit evaluated a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission regarding its Universal Service Fund contribution rates. The petitioners, which included various corporate entities and individual consumers, argued that the agency unlawfully relied on data from a private organization known as the Universal Service Administrative Company. The court determined that the agency violated the Government Corporation Control Act by creating this corporate entity without explicit legislative backing from Congress. Because this statutory violation tainted the foundational calculations, the panel chose to grant the petition, vacate the disputed financial assessment, and remand the matter for further administrative proceedings.
October 16 · 55 min
How a Broker Pocketed Thirteen Million Dollars
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a legal dispute involving SEACOR Marine and GOL, a maritime broker that secured vessel charters for oil and gas companies like Cox Operating. After Cox filed for bankruptcy, it issued a $13 million partial payment toward GOL’s massive prepetition claim, which included roughly $2.7 million owed to SEACOR for unpaid services. Although GOL collected these funds, it distributed the money entirely to itself and closely related corporate entities while giving nothing to SEACOR. The district court previously granted summary judgment in favor of GOL, concluding that it was not explicitly paid for SEACOR’s invoices and that the Trade Agreement prohibited payments to vendors who stopped servicing Cox. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, ruling that genuine questions of material fact remained regarding whether the bankruptcy payout covered SEACOR’s claims and whether GOL breached its fiduciary duties and brokerage agreement obligations.
October 14 · 43 min
How a Spreadsheet Busted a Fraudulent Chiropractor
Chiropractor Benjamin Tekippe appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of health care fraud and wire fraud involving Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana. Investigators discovered that Tekippe routinely submitted identical service codes, charged more for massage therapy than any other chiropractor in the state, and pressured his staff to fabricate treatment notes. Although Tekippe argued that his actions constituted merely isolated billing mistakes and presented patient declarations to justify his services, the appellate court determined that the evidence clearly established a pattern of pervasive fraud. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's sentencing decisions and upheld the finding that separating his legitimate practices from fraudulent ones was entirely impractical.
October 9 · 42 min
Ginnie Mae’s Extinguishment of Mortgage Tails
This legal dispute centers on a federal appeal regarding mortgage-backed securities and the authority of Ginnie Mae to extinguish a bankrupt lender's mortgage interests. When a reverse mortgage issuer defaulted, Ginnie Mae assumed control of the underlying loans, which effectively wiped out a third-party lender's security interest in unsecuritized mortgage balances known as tails. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Ginnie Mae acted fully within its statutory and contractual authority. Furthermore, the court held that the third party's tort claim was barred by sovereign immunity and that its arbitrary-and-capricious claim under the Administrative Procedure Act was forfeited due to an intentional omission from the original complaint.
October 9 · 41 min
Hogan v. FCI La Tuna Case Manager
A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition filed by prisoner Dennis Michael Hogan, who sought First Step Act time credits for the period between his sentencing and his arrival at his designated Bureau of Prisons facility. Hogan argued that he was entitled to accrue these credits during his pre-transfer detention, contending that Bureau of Prisons regulations improperly delayed his eligibility. The majority concluded that Hogan's claim failed because he did not substantiate any actual participation in recidivism reduction programs, which is a mandatory statutory prerequisite for earning time credits. In contrast, the dissenting judge argued that the case should be remanded because the Bureau of Prisons prevented Hogan from accessing required programming before his facility transfer, creating genuine disputes of material fact that precluded summary judgment.
October 8 · 57 min
Appliance Efficiency Standards and Federal Jurisdiction
In Bill Word v. U.S. Department of Energy, appliance consumers appealed a lower court's dismissal of their lawsuit challenging federal energy and water-consumption rules for dishwashers and clothes washers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first determined that the plaintiffs possessed proper standing because regulatory market compression restricted their product choices and constituted a concrete injury. However, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal, ruling that federal law vests exclusive jurisdiction for such appliance standard challenges directly in the circuit courts rather than federal district courts. The court further rejected the appellants' alternative jurisdictional arguments, concluding that their claims did not qualify as valid ultra vires actions and that the statute's savings clause did not create a separate jurisdictional pathway in equity.
October 8 · 37 min
Winter Storm Uri Contract Dispute
In a legal battle concerning a natural gas supply contract, MIECO, L.L.C. appealed a district court decision favoring producer Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. after Winter Storm Uri disrupted deliveries. Following an earlier appellate remand, the lower court conducted a bench trial and concluded that the severe weather constituted a force majeure event that legitimately prevented performance while finding that Pioneer acted with proper due diligence. MIECO challenged this outcome by arguing that the trial court ignored the previous mandate and mishandled expert testimony regarding industry standards. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected these challenges, ruling that the district court faithfully executed its instructions and did not abuse its discretion regarding evidentiary rulings. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Pioneer.
October 8 · 50 min
Navejas v. City of El Paso
Debbie Navejas filed a lawsuit as the representative of her deceased father, Armando Navejas, against Officer Steven Jaso and the City of El Paso following a tragic domestic-violence response where Armando was tased and subsequently died. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of both defendants. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's rulings, determining that Officer Jaso was shielded by qualified immunity because his single use of a taser against an actively resisting, erratic suspect did not violate any clearly established law. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability against the City of El Paso because there was insufficient evidence of a pattern of similar constitutional violations demonstrating deliberate indifference. Finally, the appeals court rejected the plaintiff's request to remand the case for additional discovery, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding scheduling orders.
October 5 · 35 min
United States v. Koan
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the federal sentence of David Daniel Koan, who was convicted of producing child pornography after serving nearly forty months in Texas state custody for a related sexual assault. During his federal sentencing, defense counsel requested a sentence adjustment to account for the time already served in state prison, but the district court mistakenly believed it lacked the legal authority to grant this relief and deferred the matter to the Bureau of Prisons. Although the government argued that the objection was forfeited and that the lower court had implicitly considered the guidelines, the appellate majority concluded that Koan had properly preserved his argument under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the sentencing judge improperly conflated judicial sentence adjustments with administrative time-credit rules. Because the lower court failed to recognize its discretionary power to reduce the term for related undischarged time, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, while a dissenting judge argued that the original sixty-year penalty reflected the judge's intent to impose the maximum lawful punishment.
October 5 · 46 min
Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies
In Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a lower court's dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed by drivers Curtis Goodban and Todd Frankfort against parking technology company Metropolis Technologies. The plaintiffs claimed that Metropolis violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through an alleged scheme of issuing exorbitant Violation Fines for unpaid parking charges. Although the district court wrongly based its dismissal on a statutory exception for debt originators without confirming that Metropolis collected debts for third parties, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds. The appellate panel determined that Metropolis does not qualify as a debt collector because its primary business purpose is operating parking garages rather than collecting debts, and the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that Metropolis regularly collects debts on behalf of others. Finally, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal with prejudice because the plaintiffs made only a basic, unsupported request for leave to amend without detailing how they would fix their pleading deficiencies.
October 5 · 44 min
Phillips v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery
In these consolidated appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed two related Texas products liability cases arising from a patient's tragic death following colon surgery involving a surgical stapler and staples. The plaintiffs, consisting of the decedent's widow and four children, initially sued certain corporate entities for breach of warranty and defective design, but failed to provide mandatory presuit notice to the proper defendant. After the first lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and a second state-court lawsuit was removed and subsequently dismissed on preclusion grounds, the plaintiffs challenged both district court judgments on appeal. Finding that the plaintiffs conceded their failure to meet statutory notice requirements and forfeited substantive challenges to the preclusion rulings, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court judgments in their entirety.

Showing 1–20 of 62 episodes