Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury
Tensions between free speech and public protection were exposed during SCOTX arguments on licensing requirements for public adjusters. The justices posed hypotheticals about professions including lawyers, doctors and journalists, but the prevailing image was that of a roofer standing atop a house calling the insurance company.
Keresa Richardson has argued to the courts that the malapportionment of the 14 judicial districts in Texas is a “disease” and that the use of docket equalization measures to even the workload among the courts is a “field dressing.” Richardson is alleging both issues constitute violations of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Houston lawyer George Fleming says Texas law should bring an end to the claims of thousands of his former clients by analyzing “privity,” or the existence of a legally binding relationship between them, under standards articulated both in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Taylor v. Sturgell and Section 40 of the Restatement of Judgments. SCOTX justices heard arguments Tuesday and had plenty of questions.
In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a massage company pays $1 million to end the sex assault claims lodged by two female customers, a lawsuit between the parent company of Ace Cash Express and a former business partner seeks as much as nine-figure damages, and American Airlines wins an appeal in a discrimination lawsuit venue fight.
Allyson Ho called her husband, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, with exciting news: She’ll get to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, her fifth time before the high court. He looked up the case and discovered SCOTUS was also taking on a case he’d drawn attention to.
The panel determined that because the actions of the McKinney police took to end the hostage situation and standoff were “objectively necessary,” Vicki Baker isn’t entitled to compensation on her Fifth Amendment takings claim. The Fifth Circuit said U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which has long recognized an exception to the takings clause, mandated the outcome and that, as a lower court, “it is not for us to decide that fairness and justice trump historical precedent.”
Though I have been counsel on SCOTUS cert petitions and responses and the occasional amicus brief over the years, I never had the opportunity to argue before the High Court. I realized I needed to make my own arrangements to watch our Supremes in action.
The argument I observed involved a lawsuit out of Texas and the Fifth Circuit challenging the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism. The nine justices were active in asking questions of counsel.
In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Texas juries find infringement in one case involving smart thermostats and another involving cloud storage, a group of doctors want a Harris County judge to confirm a $153.5 million arbitration award in a dispute with UnitedHealthcare and federal prosecutors in Houston drop a female genital mutilation case.
Harry Reasoner grew up on a farm outside San Marcos, milking cows and raising pigs for 4-H competition. At 80, he has had a storied career, representing corporations in some of the biggest trials in history. Clients pay as much as $1,500 an hour for his counsel. Now Reasoner's two children - Barrett and Macey and the extraordinary courtroom success they've had - are making sure that their father's legacy will continue for many, many years. Meet the Reasoners.
In this edition of Litigation Roundup, a history professor at the University of Texas at Austin sees his retaliation lawsuit revived while a finance professor at the university sees his discrimination lawsuit tossed, a judge in the valley awards a man who had his leg amputated in a workplace injury $10.5 million, and a team of lawyers at Foley & Lardner get a win for their direct-selling client against the Federal Trade Commission.
The appellate court praised U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer for casting light on the NFL retirement plan’s “disregard of players’ rights” and its “lopsided system aggressively stacked against disabled players.” But, it said, former running back Michael Cloud was not entitled, under the plan’s rules, to the increase in benefits that Judge Scholer ordered.
Fowler’s experience raising unprecedented constitutional issues in federal courts will enhance McKool Smith’s growing appellate practice, the firm says.
© Copyright 2026 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.
