Raffi Melkonian

@rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social

35544 Followers 640 Following

Appellate lawyer at Wright, Close & Barger in Houston, with a Fifth Circuit and TX appellate practice. So-called Dean, #appellatetwitter. Host of The Appellate Wanderer podcast

We must determine whether the best reading of 29 U.S.C. § 657(c)(2), which grants OSHA authority to "prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain accurate records of ... work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses," confers upon OSHA the power to promulgate its mental-illness recording rule. Exxon contends that § 657(c)(2) does not delegate OSHA sufficient authority to authorize the rule; OSHA disagrees. 3 Tho
A medieval coat of arms with the motto "mediocritas"
"A gay couple kissed here" Jon did not
Face foundrie
she failed to fill her prescription for an antipsychotic drug
$170,000 of damages.
Sarah Budd worked as a Parts Clerk for SkyWest Airlines, eventually transferring to the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. While there, she was subjected to demeaning sexual comments from her coworkers. For example, maintenance supervisor Dallin Hansen asked her “if [she] liked whips and chains and leathers” and if so, she would “get along just great [t]here.” Hansen continued making similar comments and sexual jokes towards Budd and would call her into his office to ask her personal questions. At one point, he suggested “tak[ing] her and sell[ing] her out there [so they could] make some money off of her.” Budd understood him to be referencing the red-light district near the airport and implying that they should sell her as a prostitute. Other employees followed Hansen’s lead and made other innuendo laden jokes and comments towards Budd. These included comments about sex positions, using lube, and rape. She discussed the harassment with her husband and told him about some of the comments in text messages.
yWest next argues that the duty to mitigate emotional damages is such a well-established common law principle that we must presume Congress meant for it to apply. But, while the duty to mitigate damages generally is firmly established in the common law, the duty to mitigate emotional damages specifically is not.
The revised panel opinion joins an equally errant unpublished opinion on which it relies, De Leon v. Munoz, No. 24-40215, 2025 WL 957500 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished). As a matter of meaningless coincidence, De Leon was decided the same day as the district court order à quo.
Movie buffs dispute how many years the main character in Groundhog Day was caught in the time loop. The lowest estimate seems to be about 8½ 6The revised panel opinion joins an equally errant unpublished opinion on which it relies, De Leon v. Munoz, No. 24-40215, 2025 WL 957500 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished). As a matter of meaningless coincidence, De Leon was decided the same day as the district court order à quo. 8 Case: 25-40170 Document: 122-2 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 No. 25-40170 years.7 At the current rate of derailment and delay, the instant litigation (Lopez v. Ramirez) isn’t far behind. I respectfully dissent from the refusal to grant rehearing en banc
On the other hand, too often there is little that is reasonable for the individuals on the fatal receiving end of these encounters, especially for their families who are left behind. With no instructions to stay in the vehicle, no opportunity to combat the preconception that he was a violent threat on the basis of warrants out for his arrest, and no time to comply with the command that registered in his ears simultaneously with the fatal shot that lodged in his neck, this tragic circumstance exposes that reality.
This appeal arises from a fatal encounter between Jalen Randle and Houston police officers. Police pursued Randle via car in order to execute Case: 25-20383 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 No. 25-20383 felony warrants out for his arrest. Following the pursuit, Randle exited and then returned to retrieve an object. One of the officers yelled, “Show me your hands.” Before the sentence was finished, the officer fatally shot Randle. Plaintiffs-Appellants,1 who are Randle’s family and his estate
As Parents reject Vitamin K shots, some babies develop bleeding.
When you pick up a cold record and an adverse judgment, what’s your process for finding the one or two issues worth fighting for, and how do you resist the urge to argue everything? One thing I do at the beginning of a case is to sit with trial counsel and listen to all the issues the trial lawyer identified as problematic at trial. I call this process the “airing of grievances” after a joke in the TV show Seinfeld about a made-up holiday called “Festivus.” Not all of those are worthy of appeal, and it might be that I find an issue that the trial lawyer didn’t really think about, but most of the time the person who was there at trial knows the couple of things that made the difference. Listening to them talk about the case helps me focus in on what really want wrong. Plus, I’ve heard from my co-counsel that it is cathartic to get to complain about the trial to a sympathetic ear after a tough result (I’m usually hired when we don’t like the result at trial!).
Caution. Counsel are reminded that in every case the duty of counsel is fully discharged without filing a petition for rehearing en banc unless the case meets the rigid standards of FED. R. APP. P. 40(b)(2)(A)-(D). As is noted in FED. R. APP. P.40(g) and 40(d), en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored. Among the reasons is that each request for en banc consideration must be studied by every active judge of the court and is a serious call on limited judicial resources. Counsel have a duty to the court commensurate with that owed their clients to read with attention and observe with restraint the standards of FED. R. APP. P. 40(b)(2). The court takes the view that, given the extraordinary nature of petitions for en banc consideration, it is fully justified in imposing sanctions on its own initiative under, inter alia, FED. R. APP. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, upon the person who signed the petitions, the represented party, or both, for manifest abuse of the procedure.
Those attorneys’ statements usually hide a disingenuous message: “Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. We know all you judges are hopelessly overworked, and we want to make your lives easier by not devoting your scarce en banc resources to our case. We already won, so just leave it alone.”
Advocates who win at the panel stage often oppose rehearing by urging that en banc resources are scarce and that taking an undeserving case en banc robs more weighty cases of the attention they deserve.1 That’s not my position here. Generally speaking, there should be more en banc polls, and this court does not grant nearly as many en banc rehearings as it should; I more often vote in favor of rehearings than against. The en banc court has plenty of resources to decide as many cases as it is willing to take and to do so comprehensively, efficiently, and correctly.
No jury could improve upon the testimony of the man who wrote the contract and executed it for both parties. The district court captured the point precisely: “Scheinthal’s intent is the intent of the parties.” Eastex’s reading of Section 3.3 is not unreasonable on its face—but reasonableness on its face is not the question when uncontroverted evidence resolves the meaning from the inside. The jury-question rule rests on an assumption that does not hold here: that intent must be inferred from circumstantial evidence—business context, prior dealings, industry custom. No inference is required. The source of intent is in the record, uncontroverted, and identified. Sending this case to a jury would not resolve a factual dispute— there is none. It would simply postpone a legal conclusion the evidence already compels. The district court did not usurp the jury’s role. It performed its own.
A member of the FIFA appeals committee – who does not represent a federation in either UEFA or CONCACAF, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interest – has been selected to hear the case. Advertisement Submissions must now be made by Monday morning, with a ruling possible before the game, but Belgium have not been provided with any guarantees by FIFA that this will be the case. It would be extraordinary at this stage if FIFA were to change their position for a second time, with Balogun under a one game ban between Wednesday night until Sunday morning, until FIFA suddenly suspended the one match ban. It is unclear whether the appeal is merely procedural or if it has a genuine chance of moving the goalposts once more ahead of a huge knockout game at a World Cup.
Hundreds of people have followed evacuation orders and headed to the designated federal buildings, but two of the buildings are full. At a third, the Department of Commerce, none of the doors are open. People are standing clumped around the entrances. When asked by some of them how to get in, a Secret Service officer shrugs.
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing (5th Cir. R.40 I.O.P.), the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Because no member of the panel or judge in regular active service requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Fed. R. App. P.40 and 5th Cir. R.40), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The court’s prior opinion in this case is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place. Google, L.L.C. petitions for a writ of mandamus, challenging the district court’s refusal to transfer a suit filed against it by Branch Metrics, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40788 Document: 81-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2026 No. 25-40788 Inc., to the Northern District of California. Google argues that the district court plainly abused its discretion in the calculation and balancing of the factors governing transfer. We agree and thus grant the writ of mandamus and direct the district court to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. Judge Ho concurs for the reasons stated in the court’s prior opinion. Judge Higginson dissents for the reasons stated in his prior dissent. The mandate shall issue forthw
Summary judgment is a lethal weapon, and courts must be mindful of its aims and targets and beware of overkill in its use.
Todd then passed the tip to Squad 15 Officer Gerald Goines. The falsehoods did not end with Garcia. To secure a no-knock warrant to search the house, Goines falsely claimed in an affidavit that, on January 27, 2019, a confidential informant purchased heroin and observed a firearm at the house. He also falsely claimed that fellow Squad 15 Officer Stephen Bryant observed the drug purchase. With the search warrant in hand, Goines and his Squad 15 supervisors, Sergeants Clemente Reyna and Thomas Wood, reviewed the warrant and the tactical execution plan. Once Wood approved the plan, he joined Squad 15 Officers Frank Medina and Gallegos on a tactical "drive-by" of the house. Goines later led the pre-raid briefing with the officers who would later help execute the search warrant. He described the property and communicated to the officers that they should expect a female resident, a male resident known to carry a gun, and an aggressive dog. The Raid. After the briefing, eighteen officers were dispatched to the house to execute the search warrant. The "entry team" consisted of Squad 15 Officers Medina, Bryant, Gallegos, Goines, Cedell Lovings, Manuel Salazar, Oscar Pardo, Eric Sepolio, and Nadeem Ashraf, as well as Sergeants Reyna and Wood. Six other HPD Officers- Morales, Blankenship-Reeves, Joseph Arechiga, Samuel Garza, Valeriano Rios, and Yvette Ortiz— assisted
The memorandum that the two sides agreed to calls for Iran to "make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels" through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. Crucially, it leaves "arrangements" and "best efforts" undefined. Iran appears to have interpreted that language to mean that it can determine which route ships must take. Hours before its attack on the container ship, Iran had warned ships that the only route through the strait was through its waters, trying to stop vessels from using
Golden Armenian cross with blue enamel
Oriental rug
In the 1970s, Italian pop star Adriano Celentano released a smash-hit single titled “Prisencolinensinainciusol.” The point of the song is—well it’s better to hear for yourself. Explaining a joke can kill the bit, so give it a listen if you can and then turn the page.1 1See Adriano Celentano, Prisencolinensinainciusol (Vinyl Record, Clan Celentano 1973), https://archive.org/details/WeAreBackSliding_1640861777. For those who can’t listen to it now, the song sounds like it’s in English, but it’s actually gibberish. Celentano later explained: “I thought that I would write a song which would only have as its theme the inability to communicate . . . . And to do this, I had to write a song where the lyrics didn’t mean anything.” It’s Gibberish, but Italian Pop Song Still Means Something, NPR (Nov. 4, 2012, at 16:13 ET), https://www.npr.org/2012/11/ 04/164206468/its-gibberish-but-italian-pop-song-still-means-something. The song is funny because it violates language’s first and greatest commandment: say something. This rule, integral to the very concept of a language, is intentionally violated only by artists, jokers, and the insane. Judges and lawyers almost always follow it. That’s why we resist interpretations that’d render meaningless any snippet of written text, whether found in our Constitution, a statute, a contract, or some other legal document. Today, however, the plurality opinion and the concurrence conclude that the district court’s clarifying order says and does nothing: It didn’t spell out that there was no longer a final order, so it had no legal effect. Our precedents don’t compel this result, and if they did, I’d jettison them rather than the first rule of language.
dentical preemption clause. Second, Durnell claims that EPA’s regulations—and its procedures for registering pesticides and approving pesticide labels—exceed or contravene EPA’s statutory authority under FIFRA. See Brief for Respondent 21–25, 39–40 (citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369 (2024)). 16 MONSANTO v. DURNELL Opinion of the Court Durnell is incorrect. Again, FIFRA empowers EPA to “prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of [FIFRA].” 7 U. S. C. §136w(a)(1). And FIFRA expressly directs EPA to register pesticides and “determin[e]” that the pesticide’s “labeling” complies with FIFRA’s many specific requirements. §136a(c)(5)(B). During that extensive registration process, EPA critically evaluates the pesticide’s label to ensure that the label contains all warnings necessary to protect human health. After EPA makes a determination about the appropriate warnings for a pesticide’s label, a manufacturer is legally required to use that label unless and until EPA subsequently approves or requires a new label. See 40 CFR §§152.44(a), 156.70(c). Under FIFRA’s preemption provision, those federal labeling requirements displace any additional or different state-law requirements.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered default judgment on July 8, 2024. The court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over KJ Win, concluding that Plaintiffs had effected proper service of process. And the court found that Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations established negligence and respondeat superior liability against KJ Win. The district court awarded Roberts $800,000 in economic damages and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. It awarded Chambers $39,806.73 in economic damages and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. The court’s final judgment thus awarded damages totaling $2,839,806.73 against KJ Win. On October 4, 2024, KJ Win surfaced and moved to set aside the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).2 In that motion, KJ Win raised five issues: (1) it was not provided notice of the evidentiary hearing; (2) its default was not willful; (3) Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by setting aside the judgment; (4) it had meritorious defenses; and (5) substantial justice would be served by setting aside the judgment. The
Article I, § 17 of the New York Constitution, first adopted in 1905, establishes that the "[llabor of human beings is not a [*2 ]commodity nor an article of commerce and shall never be so considered or construed." In furtherance of that policy, section 17 provides that
SCOTUS briefs
Super boring lawyer office
Before HIGGINSON, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of properties located in the City of New Braunfels, Texas, appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City. Appellants claim that the City's zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") regulating short-term property rentals in certain residential districts— enacted years before any Appellant purchased their property-violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Their due process claim rests on the premise that Case: 25-50025 Document: 114-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2026 No. 25-50025 Texas law recognizes a protected property interest in "the right to lease one's home on a short-term basis." Texas courts, however, have held that it does not. We further hold that the Ordinance survives rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court's judgment is accordingly AFFIRMED.
The combination of the intensive US-Israel joint strikes on the regime’s leaders and the Kurdish invasion was intended to “break the fear barrier” among the Iranian opposition, which had seen thousands murdered by the regime in previous weeks, the report said. The TV report said that Israel’s Mossad spy agency had been working on the plan for years, citing foreign reports that the Mossad and CIA have long been arming the Kurds, and said Mossad chief David Barnea had presented it to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and discussed it in Washington DC in the run-up to the war
The officials described the text of the agreement as incredibly vague, mainly intended to create a more favorable environment for the highly technical, in-person talks to come. They added that the
eview of the public deed – The notary reads the entire contract aloud, ensuring all parties understand its contents.
ria and aroma, fighting fatigue, and boosting metabolism and the immune system. The website also claims that "[g)raphene moves heat away from your core and contains vibrational en-ergy." As part of its promotion, Jewel uploaded a video to YouTube demonstrating that a Reign pad's graphene strip can light a lightbulb. Busy Beaver Publications, LLC is a Wisconsin company that publishes
Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Chief Judge. Jewel Sanitary Napkins sells feminine hygiene products containing materials with purported health benefits. Over the past few years, Jewel has advertised its products to the Amish community through Busy Beaver's advertising publications. After Busy Beaver published a reader-submitted ad, Jewel sued for defamation, alleging the ad made false accusations about the safety of Jewel's
Huge bubble wrap roll
He looked at me doubtfully for a moment. 'He's womitin, sorr. Womitin'
The district court opinion errs when it gives dispositive weight to § 4.18.4 of LCMS’s Policy Manual without harmonizing it with the document as a whole or with the Church’s other corporate documents. Specifically, the district court reads “Synod or Corporate Synod” to be evidence that the ecclesiastical component of the Church, the Synod, and LCMS were two separate legal entities, each with the capacity to sue and be sued. This reading is plausible only if § 4.18.4 of the Policy Manual is read in isolation.
Here, the district court claimed that its ruling “will not involve any change to the Synod’s governing documents, nor will it require any inquiry into religious doctrine.” Contrary to Milivojevich, the court made both errors. First, as explained previously, the Synod and LCMS are designed as separate but integrated entities based on the Lutherans’ interpretation of Biblical Scripture. By imposing its own interpretation, the district court changed the meaning of the governing documents. 5 Regardless, “change” is not the line at which the church autonomy doctrine begins to apply. Second, the district court essentially denied the Church’s self-identity, rooted in the “two kingdoms” doctrine, by finding that LCMS does not represent the Synod or does not share the same interest as the Synod. Yet “matters of religious ‘faith and doctrine’ are ‘closely linked to . . . matters of church government.’” Cath. Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wis. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n, 605 U.S. 238, 257, 145 S. Ct. 1583, 1596 (2025) (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting Our Lady, 591 U.S. at 746, 140 S. Ct. at 2060).
Before SOUTHWICK, HIGGINSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: This is a tragic case of mistaken identity. A police officer believed he was targeting a gunman who had been firing on police from a residence. Instead I, he shot and badly wounded a man who had disarmed the actual shooter and then emerged from the residence holding the weapon. The issue here is whether that officer's mistake led to a violation of the victim's constitutional rights. As lamentable as these events certainly were, we agree with the district court that no constitutional violation occurred on the specific facts of this case. The district court denied relief. We AFFIRM.
Iran War Live Updates: Israel Trades Strikes With Hezbollah After New Cease-Fire With Lebanon Hezbollah’s leader said the Iran-backed group, which was not included in U.S.-brokered talks, had rejected the deal.
I am saddened by the decision of the Archdiocese of Washington to cut its affiliation with St. Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal (SMC). I ask forgiveness for any ways that I have not been faithful to the teachings of the Church's Magisterium, particularly in the cited video on "aliens and the demonic". I believe it is of the utmost importance to be obedient to the Church
The Archdiocese of Washington announced today that Robert Cardinal McElroy has removed Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, a priest of the Diocese of Syracuse, N.Y., as an exorcist of the Archdiocese of Washington, and ended all affiliation between the archdiocese and the Saint Michael Center for Spiritual Renewal located in Washington, D.C. Cardinal McElroy said that
n mid-February, shortly before President Trump launched the war on Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted live-fire drills in its coastal waters. Iranian state media publicized the exercise, whose official name made its purpose clear: “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz.” The exercise amounted to a flashing red warning light to the Trump administration — one that, for reasons that are still not fully clear, went largely unheeded.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear at a Senate hearing that President Trump’s claim on Monday that he “had a very good call with Hezbollah” was inaccurate. “It came from Hezbollah, but through Lebanese authorities,” Rubio said.
No, the plaintiff is irrelevant to the No Nexus Rule. The plaintiff could be a rock or a potted plant. All that matters is that the defendant theoretically could enforce the state law against someone. So long as that's true, it's off to the races. And the only limit on the federal court's
vote in favor of rehearing (FED. R. ApP. P.40 and 5TH CIR. R.40). In the en banc poll, eight judges voted in favor of rehearing, JUDGES JONES, SMITH, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, OLDHAM, and WILSON, and nine voted against rehearing, CHIEF JUDGE ELROD, and JUDGES STEWART, RICHMAN, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, DOUGLAS, and RAMIREZ.
If Tehran refuses real terms, the military and economic warfare campaign can be resumed. The leverage is there. The forces are in position — and President Trump can arm, support, and help unleash millions of Iranians to retake their streets and their country. The only question is whether the president who built this position has the will to use it. It is a good bet that he will.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/29/6-essential-requirements-for-a-good-iran-nuclear-deal/