The Horsemen’s Challenge: Nondelegation and the Future of HISA

United States v. Hemani: Second Amendment and Substance Use

This episode is a Supreme Court syllabus and opinion from the case United States v. Hemani, which addresses the intersection of Second Amendment rights and federal drug laws. The Court ruled that 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3), a statute disarming "unlawful users" of controlled substances, is unconstitutional when applied to individuals based solely on regular marijuana use. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion clarifies that the government failed to provide a historical analogue for such a broad ban, noting that ancestral "habitual drunkard" laws only targeted those who were mentally incapacitated or dangerous. While the decision is narrow and does not invalidate other firearm restrictions, it emphasizes that marijuana users cannot be categorically stripped of self-defense rights without individualized proof of risk. Separate concurrences by Justices Thomas, Jackson, and Alito further explore the limits of the Commerce Clause, the difficulties of the Court's history-based legal framework, and the widespread social acceptance of modern cannabis use.

The Horsemen’s Challenge: Nondelegation and the Future of HISA

This 2026 ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluates the constitutionality of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) following a previous remand from the Supreme Court. The court concludes that while recent legislative amendments successfully cured nondelegation issues regarding the Authority’s rulemaking by granting the FTC final policy oversight, the statute's enforcement provisions remain unconstitutional. Specifically, the court finds that the private Authority wields executive powers—such as conducting investigations and issuing subpoenas—without sufficient agency supervision. Additionally, the opinion rejects challenges involving the Appointments Clause, Due Process, and the Tenth Amendment, determining the Authority functions as a private entity rather than a government body. Ultimately, the court declares HISA’s enforcement framework facially unconstitutional because it empowers private actors to perform quintessentially executive functions without being subordinate to a federal agency.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections

In Landor v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not permit inmates to sue prison officials for money damages in their individual capacities. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, grounded this decision in the Spending Clause, explaining that federal statutes tied to funding are akin to contracts. Since the individual officers were not parties to the funding agreement between the federal government and the state, they never voluntarily consented to personal liability. The Court rejected arguments that the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed for such lawsuits, maintaining that Congress cannot bypass the requirement of consent to regulate private conduct directly. In a sharp dissent, Justice Jackson argued that the ruling turns federal law into a mere invitation and leaves victims of religious freedom violations without a meaningful remedy. Overall, the case reinforces a contract-based framework for spending legislation that shields non-contracting state employees from personal financial consequences.

United States v. Ma: Enforcement of Oral Mediation Agreements

This episode contains a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming a district court's decision to enforce a settlement agreement between the United States and Ma Acupuncture Center. The government initially sued the defendants under the False Claims Act for allegedly defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs through inflated billing practices. Although the parties reached an oral agreement during mediation regarding payment amounts and timelines, the defendants later challenged the settlement’s validity, claiming it lacked finality and specific legal authority. The court ruled that the material terms established during mediation created a binding contract, even without a signed written document. Furthermore, the court found that the defendants forfeited several arguments on appeal by failing to raise them in a timely manner during the initial proceedings. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the parties to honor the essential terms of their mediated deal.

Guilbeau v. Schlumberger: Hybrid Pay and FLSA Exemptions

This case, from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals examines whether oilfield workers are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendant, Schlumberger, utilized a "hybrid" payment model that combined a fixed biweekly salary with variable daily rates for field work. The court determined that because the employees received a guaranteed minimum salary regardless of their performance, they qualified as exempt professionals. Consequently, the court reversed a lower court's ruling, finding that the lead plaintiff was not eligible for overtime compensation. While the individual claim was dismissed, the court remanded the case to address the remaining members of the collective action lawsuit.