A Bexar County jury awarded $5 million to a female lawyer who had been groped at the courthouse. See my post about that trial here. Allan Manka appealed that verdict to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio and lost. Now, he has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. He may have a decent argument. Manka is arguing that the jury award of $5 million in past and future mental suffering is not supported by the evidence.

Manka points to the Fourth Court using a formula of five hours of therapy a day would support the verdict. But, says Manka, there was no such evidence at trial that Michelle Acosta would see or has seen a therapist five hours per day. The Fourth Court used the same formula for the $3 million award for past mental anguish and the $2 million award for future mental anguish. But, in reality, the Court simply said that was a reasonable anchor or guide for the jury.

There is no precise formula for what a just amount for mental suffering should look like. In front of the Fourth Court, Manka argued that at trial, Acosta’s lawyer told the jury they could award punitive damages. Or, if they could not reach agreement on punitive damages, they could assess a larger amount of mental anguish damages, “to punish” Mr. Manka. The Court Court rejected that argument. But, the defendant may have better luck with a more conservative Texas Supreme Court.

See the San Antonio Express-News report here for more information.

He served as a mechanic, the chief mechanic for his battalion. He loved his job and was devoted to his unit. As they trained and prepared to deploy to Iraq, he promised them. He guaranteed no HMMWV would break down outside the wire. That is a big promise to make. He was an E7, a Sergeant First Class with over ten years in the Army. He knew the HMMWV’s in Iraq were hand-me-down’s from five previous rotations. They came with all sorts of mechanical issues. But, the SFC knew his skills and he knew the capabilities of the mechanics he supervised. He promised and he meant it.

The SFC was dedicated. He performed much of the work himself, based on the firm belief that he would ask nothing of his soldiers he was not willing to do himself. So, he lifted the 55 gallon drums with no hesitation. He heard the disc pop when he incurred three herniated discs. He was out of action for months, if not forever. They took him to Germany, the nearest base with back specialists.

Two weeks after he left Iraq, two of his HMMWV’s broke down. Two were killed. Two were evacuated to Germany, where all the worst cases go. It wasn’t his promise anymore. But, he felt responsible all the same.One of the KIA’s was his buddy, Achmed, the Iraqi interpreter. The E7 was angry, angry at the war, angry with himself for getting hurt when his unit needed him.

The E7 worked hard everyday to recover at BAMC, Ft. Sam Houston. The promise was never far from his mind. The doctors said he had more determination than anyone they had ever seen. He should be a medical retirement, but he worked so hard. The doctors did not know about the promise. They did not know about Achmed. The E7 never forgot either.

A year later, he was close to full rehabilitation. The doctors thought he was a medical miracle. The wife knew. She knew about the promise and about Achmed. She wanted to shake him when he said he would transfer to the 101st or the 82d Divisions. Both divisions would deploy very soon to Iraq and Afghanistan. The wife knew why he wanted to transfer, why he wanted to deploy again. She wanted to shake him, sometimes. But, she also understood. That was why she loved him, because he always kept his promises.

Coach Lane Kiffin upset the sports world in a big way a couple weeks ago when he recruited two former NFL players for his LSU football team. Both of the two former NFL players, Dae Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris, had just graduated from their schools and neither had actually played in an NFL game. But, both had indeed practiced with NFL teams and likely received an NFL paycheck or two.

LSU is a member of the Southeastern Conference in college football. Virtually all of the SEC teams were ready to evict LSU from the SEC if those two former NFL players suited up for an LSU game. Yet, Coach Kiffin was proceeding with possibly listing them on his roster. His public comments indicated he would indeed use them in a game. At the same time, Mr. Wright and Mr. Harris filed suit seeking a court order allowing them to play once again in a college football game. The district court judge issued an order allowing them to play.

At the same time, Coach Kiffin was also communicating with a lawyer, Tom Mars. Mars, a friend of Kiffin’s, had previously represented the Ole Miss quarterback, Trinidad Chambliss. As schools and the SEC conference expressed alarm at Kiffin’s plan to use former NFL players, the coach also sought advice from Mr. Mars. Whenever Mars gave him advice Kiffin did not like, Coach Kiffin would send Mr. Mars a screen shot of ChatGPT’s advice. ChatGPT was generally wrong, says Mr. Mars. In the end, Coach Kiffin did not list the two players for LSU’s first game of the season. As attorney Mars says, “Lane ignored most of my unsolicited advice, but I don’t think he’ll be using ChatGPT anymore for legal advice.” Well, Coach Kiffin would certainly be advised not to rely on ChatGPT for legal advice.

See ESPN report here for more information.

Kate Rogers was fired a year ago for comments in her dissertation. See my post about that termination here. It was clear from the get-go that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment and free speech rights. She filed suit and her case is now progressing. You would think at this point that everyone concerned would take some care. But, apparently, they have not.

According to a recent San Antonio Express-News report, the Alamo fund-raising group has tried to keep her from obtaining new employment. In a latter from her lawyer, Ms. Rogers has accused Mark M. Johnson, board chairman of Remember the Alamo Foundation, a fund-raising group, of talking to someone on the board of the Witte Museum.according to the report, Mr. Johnson asked the Witte Museum board member to not hire Kate Rogers. I am sure the lawyers representing Alamo Trust have advised Alamo Trust to not take any action that could be perceived as rep[risal. But, perhaps, the fund-raisers did not get the word?

In any event, such allegations can lead to additional litigation with a new defendant. It is very unwise to engage in such talk in the middle of a lawsuit. In fact, one measure of damages in free speech lawsuits is lost income. Ms. Rogers will surely point to her lost income as a measure of damages if she prevails in her lawsuit. Why would anyone want to make her lost income bigger?

It is probably not surprising that other persons resigned from the board of Remember the Alamo Foundation in response to the firing of Ms. Rogers. Three members quit after she was fired. All three said they were quitting specifically due to Rogers’ termination. Injecting politics into what should e history and community-oriented planning is risky.

See San Antonio Express-News report here for more information.

I wrote about the motion to dismiss submitted regarding Kate Rogers, the former Executive Director of the Alamo Trust here. The motions by the three Defendants struck me as rather weak. The Western District of Texas and Judge Rodriguez appear to agree. The court’s decision ignores the allegation that Ms. Rogers published “highly critical” comments about the Texas Legislature. Instead, the court rightly noted that her dissertation was not speech pursuant to her duties. Her remarks in her paper were those of a private citizen. Ms. Rogers started working on her Ph.d before she was hired by the Alamo Trust. Neither the Alamo Trust nor any other entity helped her pay for her studies. As the court noted, public employees regularly write and publish dissertations, theses and scholarship. The simple fact of their employment does not convert those papers into public speech performed as part of their duties.

Control Over Employment

The court made short work of Lt-Gov. Dan Patrick’s and Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham’s arguments that they had no control over Rogers’ employment. They both made public statements on Twitter/X that certainly indicated they had control. And, they both made public comments in the news media indicating they had some control.

The court also dismissed their arguments that Ms. Rogers was not fired. The court noted, as everyone in the world knows, that an ultimatum to quit or be fired amounts to a termination. It might have been different if Mr. Patrick and Ms. Buckingham had simply commented publicly that they disagreed with Roger’s comments. But, they went beyond that and used their power and influence to remove her from her job.

The court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss regarding most of Ms. Rogers’ claims. A motion to dismiss does not address the merits of the case. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss simply asks if the plaintiff’s claims hold enough water to justify going forward. The court found most of Ms. Roger’s Complaint does indeed hold enough water to proceed further with her lawsuit. Rogers v. Alamo Trust, Inc. Et Al, No. SA-25-CV-1500 (W.D. tex. Aug. 25, 2026)

We often hear about the Magna Carta and how that great document eventually led to our Declaration of Independence. But, what was the Magna Carta all about? In 2015, San Antonio’s own Prof. Vincent R.  Johnson at St. Mary’s Law School wrote a nice piece about the Magna Carta. He explained in his article what was so new and ground-breaking about the “Great Charter.”

One of the problems with the Magna Carta, he explains, is that it is not organized by topics. One must study the whole document to understand it.

Force of Arms

One of the first topics Prof. Johnson mentions is due process. The bad King John would frequently take action “by force of arms against recalcitrants as though assured of their guilt, without waiting for legal procedure.” In some cases, noblemen were deprived of their estates not by their peers, but entirely by Crown nominees. So, Clause 39 states: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Without due process, nothing else matters. No right can be protected without due process. This clause ensured the king could not seize property aided and abetted by his cronies.

Today, we often cite the Magna Carta as the basis for trial by jury. Prof. Johnson explains that some historians disagree. Clause 39 refers to judgment by one’s equal peers. But, one historian says the “judgment” refers to the initial decision regarding how trial would be conducted. The jury of peers would decide whether trial would be by ordeal, by hot iron or by water, compurgation, wager of law, trial by battle, or production of charter. Judgment, according to this view, did not refer to the final decision, but to the method to reach that final decision. The men of the time believed that God would render the final decision after one of these trial methods.

“Compurgation” refers to the medieval practice of of allowing the accused to swear an oath regarding his innocence. The accused would then need an oath from a certain number, often 12, other persons saying they believed the oath of the accused person.

Trial by Peers

But, added the professor, regarding a dispute between then King John and King Alexander of Scotland, the Magna Carta provided that a dispute over hostages should be resolved by judgment of his equals in “our court.” So, at least when trial by combat or by ordeal was not possible, the signers of the Magna Carta believed that trial by peers was the solution. So, suggests Prof. Johnson, some portions of the Carta did indeed refer to the trial itself, not simply the means by which trial would be conducted.

Clause 39 also presented a new form of evidence. It required that in the future, no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement. He must produce credible witnesses to support his own “official” assertion. Officials at the time were generally lords. So, this clause removed from the lords the power to imprison a common man simply on his own, unsupported word.

Judicial Independence

A well-known provision, Clause 40 provides simply, “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” In a time when the Catholic Church would routinely “sell” dispensations, many judges were bribed to rule one way or the other. This provision set a new standard, by which justice was (mostly) not for sale. We take judicial independence for granted today, but once, that was not so.

Clause 36: “In [the] future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs.” The writ of inquisition allowed a criminal defendant to avoid or delay trial – which was often trial by combat. Some call trial by combat “legalized private revenge,” because the accuser could exact the combat. The writ of inquisition involved a procedure in which one’s neighbors could could exonerate a defendant. The writ, however, was used as a revenue device by King John and was sold only to those with deep pockets. Making this writ freely available decreased the numbers of trials by combat.

Proportional Sentencing

The Magna Carta addressed proportionality in sentencing. Clause 20  provided. “For a trivial offense, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offense, and for a serious offense correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein (a feudal tenant) the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy  of a royal court . . . ” The goal was to not reduce a criminal to beggary. There were similar provisions for earls, barons and clergy. The concept, which was new at the time, was to make punishment “fit the crime.” We see this concern still resonating on our modern time when some seek reforms regarding bail. Bail for misdemeanors often result sin persons staying in jail for months before they see a trial.

Widows could be married to any man willing to pay the going rate. The payment would be made to the widow’s feudal overlord. But, some widows were wealthy enough to outbid suitors and buy a charter guaranteeing she would not have to remarry. King John did a fruitful business in selling these charters to women who wished to marry their own choice, or not remarry at all. Clause 8 provides, “No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without consent of whatever the lord she may hold them of.” This provision created new legal rights for women. This was not true freedom, but it was a step.

All Free Men

Clause 1 was addressed “TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM.” Clearly, the rights in the Magna Carta were guaranteed to all free men, meaning not to vassals and the like. Clause 40, which guaranteed access to justice, was not limited to free men. It simply said “to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” So, Clause 40 was much broader in scope than just the free men. And, Clause 60 asked that regarding all these rights, “let men of our kingdom . . . observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.” Clause 60 then expressed the hope that these rights would be extended by the free men to to those not free.

The treatment of debtors was addressed. Clause 9 provided that the King would not seize any land or or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor had movable goods with which to pay the debt. That means the creditor could not seize land when smaller goods would suffice to pay the debt. That provision provided some protection in an agrarian society, so the debtor could still earn a living.

The Magna Carta was not a perfect document. But, it was ahead of its time. The protections afforded the common free man far surpassed that found in other countries of the time. It was to these protections that the Founding Fathers looked in 1776.

I previously wrote about the Department of Homeland Security General Counsel who started an online “Worst of the Worst” list for judges here. It was a very odd and dangerous thing to do. Now, 128 Judges have submitted a bar complaint to James Percival’s bar, the Florida Bar association. The complaint rightly notes this post increases the danger for judges who incur the ire of this administration. The list threatens the rule of law. And, Mr. Percival’s action specifically violates Florida’s Rule 4-8.2(a). That rule bars lawyers from impugning the integrity of judges and officials.

Percival’s list is completely bizarre. It is obviously designed to exert pressure on judges, a pressure that is totally unrelated to the merits of any case. Anytime 128 judges agree on anything, you can be certain that Mr. Percival’s law license is at risk. It never ceases to amaze me how Pres. Trump constantly seems to find lawyers willing to roll the dice with their law licenses. See ABA Bar Journal report here.

When I first started practicing in the Western District of Texas (San Antonio, Austin, El Paso), the courts were overwhelmed by the war on drugs. The war on drugs cranked up in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s. But, the explosion of cases due to immigrants seeking bail is even bigger. In July, 2025, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a new memo that took away the power of immigration judges to set bail for immigrants waiting for their hearings. That one change has resulted in thousands of arrests by ICE. That means tens of thousands of immigrants are not turning to Federal courts and submitting writs of habeas corpus petitions seeking bail from Federal Judges.

For the San Antonio Division of the Western District, we have seen an increase from 201 such filings in the first quarter of 2025 to 2,959 writs in the first quarter of 2026. The San Antonio court typically sees 1,500 civil lawsuits each year. They reached 4,000 by May, 2026. Many of those 4,000 were writs of habeas corpus filed by immigrants.

San Antonio Division

Many of the immigrant detention facilities lie within the geographical boundaries of the San Antonio division. So, we have received the lion’s share of those filings. And, every time, they file such a writ, it is granted and the immigrant is allowed to post a bond. The issue might be different if there was some question whether an immigrant is entitled to bond. But, there is no question. In fact, many of those arrested have long-standing ties to their communities. They have families. They are simply much less likely to skip bail and avoid the judicial process.

In fact, ICE has lost on over 16,000 such submissions. Four-hundred, sixty-nine judges have ruled against the iCE regarding the new bond policy. Fifty-four judges have sided with ICE. Courts have routinely moved to 24 hour staffing. They know that an hour or two may mean the difference between a long-time immigrant getting shipped off to some obscure country or going back to his family.

The previous policy across multiple administrations was to refuse bail only for those immigrants who were brand new to tho this country. Yet, the great weight of judicial opinion is they are in indeed entitled to bail. This explosion of litigation also means that civil lawsuits, which always take a back seat to criminal and immigration related cases, will languish even longer than normal. See Politico news report here.

It is an extraordinary step to take. James Percival, the General Counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, has started posting the names of Federal Judges who, in his view, most frequently oppose DHS deportation efforts. See Fox News story here. If any of us normal private attorneys tried to do that, we would likely soon see our license flying out the window. In his posting, Mr. Percival describes those Judges as the “Worst of the Worst.”

Attacks on Judges are still increasing. Actions like Mr. Percival’s and constant name-calling by the President have eroded the customary respect for Judges. That has resulted in a sharp increase in threats against Judges and their families. The Reuters news service published its findings of over 600 posts on social media between February and May, 2025 targeting the family members of Judges. In March, 2025, Judge James Boasberg ruled that government officials could face contempt charges for illegally deporting immigrants and defying a court order. Within days, online posters attacked his daughter, Katharine Boasberg, who has long been involved in serving low-income communities.

In 2022, Congress passed an act to protect Judges’ personal information. The act was named after Daniel Anderl. Mr. Anderl was the 20 year old son of Federal Judge Esther Salas. Her son was targeted by a former litigant before Judge Salas and killed. For more information, see the ABA Bar Journal report here.

The courts are just starting to grapple with the use of Artificial Intelligence in regard to discovery. Discovery is the critical part of every lawsuit in which one party may “discover” the opposing party’s possible evidence. There is caselaw holding that if a party uses open AI in preparing for litigation, then that party will be deemed to have waived the attorney-client and work-product privileges. In Warner v. Gilbarco, 820 F.Supp.3rd 629 (E.D. Mich. 2026), the defendant sought materials used by the plaintiff in using AI.

ChatGPT

In a straight employment discrimination case, the former employer apparently became convinced the employee used AI in preparing his case. When the defendant deposed the employee, the employer posed an “inordinate” amount of questions to Mr. Warner about his use of AI in preparing for his lawsuit. But, as the court noted, the defendant had no evidence that the plaintiff uploaded or produced confidential documents in violation of the protective order. The defendant, said the court, was engaging in a fishing expedition. The court then flatly told the defendant that its preoccupation with the plaintiff’s use of AI needs to “abate.”

The court pointed out a necessary factor regarding AI: a party may not seek information or documents used by a party when preparing for litigation. For a party to waive the work-product privilege, he must waive that privilege in a way that is likely to “get in an adversary’s hand.” ChatGPT AI is a tool, not a person. Simply using ChatGPT in itself does not waive a privilege. The court does not state so explicitly, but it seems to believe that the plaintiff’s use of ChatGPT was in a closed system, not one that is open to the entire digital universe. See the decision in Warner v. Gilbarco here.