The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2025 docket delivered a substantial course correction for the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with the high court reversing or vacating its rulings more often than not.
Here is a look at Fifth Circuit decisions recently reviewed by the Supreme Court. This includes summaries for the high court’s merits docket, its emergency docket and its grant-vacate-remand orders.
Merits Docket
The Supreme Court pushed back against the circuit’s use of overly rigid legal tests and expansive procedural bars, picking apart many district court rulings on appellate waivers (Hunter), judicial estoppel (Keathley), federal officer removal (Chevron), state authority over the logistics for collecting and counting voter ballots (Watson) and civil rights restrictions (Olivier, Pitchford and AT&T).
But in some key decisions, SCOTUS vindicated the Fifth Circuit’s jurisprudence, affirming important rulings on Second Amendment protections for non-intoxicated gun owners (Hemani), diversity jurisdiction preservation (Hain Celestial) and limits on individual liability for state employees under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Landor).
Of the 12 Fifth Circuit cases granted cert on SCOTUS’ October 2025 docket:
- 8 were reversed or vacated
- 3 were affirmed
- 1 was dismissed (the parties agreed)
Here is a summary of those 12 cases and how they have been decided.
Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, 24-413 — dismissed Aug. 11, 2025
Background: An association of Texas private postsecondary educational institutions challenged Biden administration-era Department of Education regulations that would facilitate discharging certain student loans. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the association failed to show that the regulations would cause irreparable harm.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed the denial. The case was remanded with instructions to enjoin and postpone the challenged regulations until final judgment. It held that the association had shown that irreparable harm was likely and that the Higher Education Act did not authorize the regulations governing the assessment of borrower defenses.
SCOTUS: In August 2025, the court dismissed the case under Supreme Court Rule 46.1 following a written agreement by both parties to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Oral arguments before SCOTUS were never held.
United States Postal Service v. Konan, 24-351 — decided Feb. 24
Background: Lebene Konan, a Texas property owner, filed a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit after USPS employees stopped delivering mail to her rental properties and marked parcels as undeliverable. She asserted state-law tort claims alleging the postal workers intentionally and maliciously withheld her mail. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the claims were barred by the FTCA’s “postal exception,” which preserves sovereign immunity for claims arising from the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed, holding that the postal exception only applies to accidental or careless mistakes — it does not shield the government from liability for not delivering the mail intentionally.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding 5-4 that the U.S. retains sovereign immunity against lawsuits for intentionally not delivering mail. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that the historical and ordinary meanings of “loss” and “miscarriage” at the FTCA’s enactment in 1946 include any failure of mail to reach its destination, whether caused by a deliberate or negligent act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, 24-724 — decided Feb. 24
Background: Sarah and Grant Palmquist sued Hain Celestial Group and Whole Foods in Texas state court, alleging their child suffered heavy-metal poisoning from Earth’s Best Organic baby food. Hain removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Texas-headquartered Whole Foods was improperly joined to defeat federal jurisdiction. The district court agreed and dismissed Whole Foods. Hain went on to win at trial.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed and vacated, holding that Whole Foods was properly joined. Because it was dismissed in error, diversity jurisdiction was lacking.
SCOTUS: The court affirmed, 9-0, holding that a district court cannot create diversity jurisdiction through its own wrongful dismissal of a party. Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion ruled that because the jurisdictional defect was not cured before the final judgment, the federal trial verdict must be vacated and the case returned to state court.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, 24-993 — decided March 20
Background: A street preacher was convicted for violating a city ordinance that restricts demonstrations during live events to a remote “designated protest area.” Gabriel Olivier paid the fine and did not appeal. He later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on First Amendment grounds for an injunction against future enforcement of the ordinance. The federal district court dismissed the case under Heck v. Humphrey, ruling that success on his civil rights claim would impermissibly imply that his standing conviction was invalid.
Fifth Circuit: The appeals court affirmed, holding that the Heck doctrine bars Section 1983 claims that cast doubt on an outstanding conviction, regardless of the type of relief the plaintiff seeks.
SCOTUS: The court reversed and remanded, 9-0. It held that Heck does not bar Section 1983 lawsuits that seek only prospective relief. Justice Kagan wrote that forward-looking claims do not seek to overturn or collect damages for a past conviction, and so they lack the concerns for judicial efficiency noted in Heck.
Pitchford v. Cain, 24-7351 — decided March 24
Background: Terry Pitchford was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Mississippi. During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory strikes against four of five Black potential jurors. Pitchford’s counsel objected, citing Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral explanations but cut off defense counsel before they could argue that those reasons were pretextual. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Pitchford waived his right to challenge the strikes by failing to explicitly argue pretext at trial. Pitchford then filed a federal habeas corpus petition. The district court granted and held that the state court’s waiver ruling was unreasonable.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed, holding that the state supreme court reasonably applied its preservation rules, which implies that the trial court had done the necessary Batson analysis.
SCOTUS: The court reversed, 5-4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion held that the state court’s waiver ruling was an unreasonable finding of facts and use of precedent under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court ruled that the pretext component is an inherent part of a Batson objection and cannot be separated or waived — more so in this case, where the trial court thwarted defense attempts to add to the record. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 24-813 — decided April 17
Background: The parish sued Chevron in state court for violations of state law arising from environmental damages caused by its drilling. Chevron sought to remove the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing its drilling operations were closely linked to its World War II-era contracts to produce and refine fuel for the military. The federal district court rejected the removal and sent the case back to state court.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court affirmed. It found that Chevron’s contract with the federal government did not explicitly dictate the method of oil extraction, and so there was no connection to federal authority.
SCOTUS: The court vacated and remanded, 8-0. It held that the federal officer removal statute requires only a close relationship — not strict federal causation or direction — between the conduct in question and a defendant’s federal duties. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion. Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment. Justice Alito recused himself.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, 25-406 — decided June 4
Background: The FCC investigated major cellular service providers, including AT&T, for security breaches involving customer location data. The FCC found that AT&T failed to safeguard confidential information and issued an administrative forfeiture order imposing a penalty of nearly $57 million. AT&T paid the fine under protest and petitioned for review, arguing that the agency’s statutory authority to impose huge penalties without guaranteeing a jury trial violated the Seventh Amendment.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court granted AT&T’s petition and vacated the FCC’s order. It held that the agency’s in-house forfeiture proceedings bypassed the right to a jury trial.
SCOTUS: The court reversed and remanded, 8-1, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. It held that the FCC’s enforcement process does not violate the Seventh Amendment because its forfeiture orders neither definitively resolve a party’s legal responsibilities nor establish conclusive findings of fact. If a regulated entity refuses to pay, the government must prove its case from scratch before a federal district court jury to collect, and thereby preserving the right to a jury trial. Justice Thomas dissented.
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, No. 25-6 — decided June 11
Background: While his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan was active, Thomas Keathley was injured in a car accident involving a Buddy Ayers Construction truck. He filed a personal injury lawsuit but failed to include it as an asset on his bankruptcy schedules. BAC moved for summary judgment, arguing that judicial estoppel bars his injury claim because he hid it from creditors.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court affirmed. The court held that a bankruptcy omission is only “inadvertent” if the debtor did not know of the facts or had no hypothetical motive to conceal the claim. But Keathley knew about the accident and had motive to hide any payout from creditors, and so the court applied an automatic bar.
SCOTUS: The court vacated and remanded, 9–0. Justice Jackson wrote the opinion, which said the Fifth Circuit’s formulation was too rigid. The application of judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, which means the court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an omission was made in bad faith or was an honest mistake.
United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 — decided June 18
Background: After the FBI searched his home and found a 9mm pistol, marijuana and cocaine, Ali Danial Hemani confessed to frequent marijuana use. He was indicted under a federal statute prohibiting unlawful users of controlled substances from firearm possession. The government did not claim that Hemani was “intoxicated” while in possession of the firearm, only that he was a regular drug user. Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law violated his Second Amendment rights. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the charge.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court affirmed. It held that there was no historical analogue to support a blanket firearm ban on individuals based solely on habitual drug use. Because the government failed to show intoxication while in possession of a firearm, the court ruled the law unconstitutional as applied in this case.
SCOTUS: The court affirmed, 9–0. It held that the federal ban cannot be used to criminalize gun possession by frequent drug users who are not actively under the influence. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch rejected the government’s broad theory that a confession of regular drug use automatically strips a citizen of Second Amendment rights.
Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063 — decided June 18
Background: Munson Hunter III pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud. His plea agreement contained a broad waiver of appeal that surrendered his right to challenge future sentences. The district court imposed a 51-month prison term plus supervised release that required him to take any prescribed mental-health medications. Hunter objected to the forced-medication condition as a violation of his fundamental due process rights, and the government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court dismissed Hunter’s appeal and enforced the waiver. It held that voluntary appellate waivers foreclose nearly all sentencing challenges — the only exceptions being when a waiver is tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel or if the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
SCOTUS: The court reversed, 8–1. In the majority opinion, Justice Kagan adopted an exception for miscarriage of justice. It held that an appellate waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it leaves in place an error that would “bring the judicial system into disrepute.” Justice Thomas filed a dissent.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, 23-1197 — decided June 23
Background: Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate, was transferred to a correctional facility in Louisiana with three weeks remaining on his sentence. When he arrived, Landor sought a religious accommodation to protect his dreadlocks and even showed a physical copy of a federal court decision supporting his right to do so. The prison guards threw the court document in the trash, handcuffed Landor to a chair and shaved his head. After his release, Landor filed a federal lawsuit seeking monetary damages against prison officials as individuals under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The district court dismissed the individual-capacity claims, ruling that the statute does not allow monetary damages.
Fifth Circuit: The appellate court affirmed. After condemning the actions of the prison guards, it held that circuit precedent dictates that RLUIPA does not authorize monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacities.
SCOTUS: The court affirmed, 6–3. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, holding that because Congress enacted RLUIPA under the Spending Clause, it serves as a contract between the federal government and the state agency that accepts federal funds. In this case, since the prison employees did not consent to personal liability, they cannot be held personally liable for monetary damages. Justice Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260 — decided June 29
Background: The RNC challenged a Mississippi statute that permits mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received up to five business days later. The RNC argued that federal law requires ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day and that federal law preempts the state’s grace period. The federal district court disagreed, holding that federal law regulates when votes must be cast, not when they must arrive.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed, holding that an “election” is only “consummated” when a ballot is in the custody of election officials. The court held that Mississippi’s statute was preempted by federal law.
SCOTUS: The court reversed, 5–4, upholding Mississippi’s statute. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett held that federal election statutes regulate when votes must be cast, not when they must be received and counted. So long as the voter’s choices are made by Election Day, the state may count them if received within its statutory grace period. Justice Alito authored a dissent, which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Kavanaugh joined in part.
Emergency or Interim Docket
This docket — the “shadow docket,” as some call it — handles urgent requests for quick judicial intervention as the underlying case percolates through the lower courts.
In emergency applications out of the Fifth Circuit this term, the high court left three of the circuit court’s rulings in place, while granting an emergency stay to override the Fifth Circuit’s block on FDA rules allowing mail delivery of the abortion pill mifepristone.
NetChoice v. Fitch, No. 25A97 — stay denied Aug. 14, 2025
Background: Mississippi enacted the Protecting Children Online Act, which requires major social media platforms to verify users’ ages and get parental consent before minors can access their services. The tech trade association NetChoice sued the state’s AG, arguing the mandate is unconstitutional as a form of online censorship and a means of stripping away online anonymity. The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement.
Fifth Circuit: The court vacated the preliminary injunction while the broader merits litigation proceeded.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court denied NetChoice’s emergency application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s order. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, noting that while the law is “likely unconstitutional,” NetChoice failed to meet the strict legal standard for emergency interim relief.
Francisco Castro v. Brito Guevara, No. 25-666 — stay denied Nov. 13, 2025
Background: Samantha Estefania Francisco Castro moved her 3-year-old daughter from Venezuela to the U.S. without the consent of the father, who held lawful custody. The father filed a petition for the child’s return under the Hague Abduction Convention. The federal district court denied the petition, finding that the request was filed more than a year after the removal and that the child was now “well settled” in Texas.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court reversed and ordered the child’s return to Venezuela. Under de novo review, the court found that the child’s age, unstable living situation and uncertain immigration status weighed against the “well settled” defense.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court denied the stay application.
Barbers Hill Independent School District v. Arnold, No. 25A720 — stay denied Jan. 14
Background: Former students De’Andre Arnold and Kaden Bradford sued BHISD, alleging its male-only hair-length policy discriminatorily targeted their locs, which violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought to depose the school superintendent and a former school board president. BHISD moved for a protective order, claiming legislative privilege shielded the officials from being questioned about their subjective motivations for the policy. The federal district court established an “assert-disclose-review” procedure, requiring the officials to answer the deposition questions while keeping the disputed transcripts confidential for subsequent judicial review.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court dismissed BHISD’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the school district and its board of trustees lacked standing to appeal since the privilege holders had not invoked legislative privilege themselves during depositions.
SCOTUS: BHISD filed an emergency application seeking a stay of the discovery order pending a petition for cert. The court denied the stay application.
Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, No. 25A1207, and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, No. 25A1208 — stay granted May 14
Background: Louisiana filed a federal lawsuit challenging FDA regulatory changes that permanently removed the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion pill mifepristone. The change allows it to be prescribed by telehealth and sent by mail. The state argued that the FDA’s changes violated the Administrative Procedure Act and undermined statewide abortion bans. The federal district court found Louisiana was likely to succeed, but only paused the case so the FDA could finish its internal safety review.
Fifth Circuit: A panel granted Louisiana’s request to suspend the FDA regulations pending appeal, which let the state’s in-person dispensing requirement take effect.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court vote granted emergency applications filed by drug makers and stayed the Fifth Circuit’s order, 7-2. The decision allows mail-order and telehealth access to mifepristone pending litigation in lower courts. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Paxton, No. 25A1389 (consolidated with Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton, No. 25A1390) — pending
Background: Texas enacted the App Store Accountability Act, which requires mobile app stores to users’ ages in Texas. It also requires parental consent before minors can download an app or make an in-app purchase. The advocacy group SEAT sued the Texas attorney general, arguing that the law is a prior restraint on speech, violating the First Amendment. The district court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law.
Fifth Circuit: A Fifth Circuit motions panel granted Texas a stay of the injunction allowing enforcement pending the appeal. The court held that the act regulates commercial speech, and as such, it triggers intermediate rather than strict scrutiny.
SCOTUS: In June 2026, SEAT filed an emergency application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay and reinstate the preliminary injunction. The application is pending.
Grant-Vacate-Remand Orders
In two cases, the Supreme Court has granted cert to vacate a Fifth Circuit decision and remand it (GVR, for short) for reevaluation under a new Supreme Court precedent.
Grande Communications Networks v. UMG Recordings, No. 24-967 — GVR April 6
Background: A group of record labels sued Grande Communications Networks, an internet service provider, for contributory copyright infringement. The labels alleged that Grande knowingly provided internet service to repeat infringers who illegally download and distribute music through peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. A jury in the Western District of Texas found Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement and awarded the labels $46.7 million in statutory damages.
Fifth Circuit: In 2024, the circuit court affirmed the liability verdict, holding that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers’ infringing activities and materially contributed to the copyright violations by continuing to provide them with internet access. Yet it vacated the $46.7 million damages award and remanded for a new trial, ruling that statutory damages should be calculated per album rather than per song.
SCOTUS: The court granted certiorari, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration in light of its recent decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment. In Cox, the court held that an ISP is not contributorily liable for copyright infringement simply for providing standard internet access to the general public — there must be proof that the provider actively induced the infringement or designed its service to facilitate infringement.
Swick v. United States, 25-5376, and Johnson v. United States, 25-6134 — GVR April 6
Background: Wesley Swick and Rodrick Johnson both faced federal supervised release revocation proceedings in Texas federal district courts for crimes and violations committed long after their original supervision periods were scheduled to expire. In both cases, the government argued that the court retained jurisdiction because the defendants’ terms had been tolled under the common law principle that a person’s supervision clock stops when they abscond or fail to report to probation.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court affirmed the revocations, holding that the fugitive tolling doctrine applies to federal supervised release and prevents a defendant from running out the clock on their sentence by staying at large.
SCOTUS: The court granted certiorari, vacated both judgments and remanded the cases to the Fifth Circuit for consideration under its decision in Rico v. United States. In Rico, an 8-1 court held that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 provides all the statutory exceptions for tolling a supervision term, and courts may not create a common-law fugitive tolling rule that extends a defendant’s supervision period solely because they absconded.
Granted Cert for Next Term
These Fifth Circuit cases have recently been granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, and arguments are expected to be held in the October 2026 term.
Beaird v. United States, 25-5343
Background: Kendrick Beaird pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court added an enhancement since Beaird possessed a 17-round magazine. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not define a “large capacity magazine,” but the official commentary says the term applies to magazines holding more than 15 rounds. Beaird objected, arguing that the court could not use the commentary to expand the scope of the written guidelines. The district court overruled and sentenced him to 72 months in prison.
Fifth Circuit: In May 2025, the appeals court affirmed the sentence. In a per curiam opinion, it held that binding precedent mandated deference to the Federal Sentencing Commission’s commentary.
SCOTUS: In April 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question before the court is whether federal courts may continue to defer to the official commentary per Stinson v. United States.
Maxwell v. Thomas, Warden, 25-5930
Background: William Maxwell, a federal inmate, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the Bureau of Prisons did not properly calculate time credits he earned under the First Step Act, which he claims should have allowed him an earlier transfer to prerelease custody. The federal district court dismissed the petition, holding that Maxwell had not fully exhausted all administrative remedies.
Fifth Circuit: The circuit court affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds. Instead, the court cited its holding in Melot v. Bergomi, which says that § 2241 habeas petitions are only appropriate in cases where a favorable ruling would automatically reduce a prisoner’s total sentence. In this case, the transfer to a halfway house or home confinement would not hasten the inmate’s final release from custody.
SCOTUS: The Supreme Court granted cert in June 2026. The question to be considered is whether a claim concerning the application of time credits under the First Step Act that seeks early transfer to a halfway house or home confinement can be brought in a § 2241 habeas petition.