⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears argument in United States versus Moses. The case arises from a supervised release revocation. Mr. Moses was on federal supervised release when he was involved in a physical altercation with a family member at an apartment. The district court held a revocation hearing and found, by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard that governs revocations, that Moses had committed a new state law violation, an assault. It revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twenty months in prison. The core legal issue on appeal is whether the district court imposed a duty to retreat on Moses when it evaluated his self-defense claim under Texas law, and if it did, whether that was error. Texas Penal Code section nine point three one, subsection f, provides that a fact finder may not consider whether an actor failed to retreat when determining whether that actor reasonably believed force was necessary. By its own terms that protection reaches only a person who had a right to be present where the force was used, who did not provoke the other person, and who was not engaged in criminal activity at the time. Moses argues the district court violated that provision. His counsel points to the court's statement that he could have stepped back out of the doorway rather than use force. The government argues that statement was a finding about how much force he used, not a duty to retreat. The government also argues that the provision did not protect Moses at all, because he had been asked to leave. Moses did not object at the hearing, so the panel reviews for plain error.

United States v. Moses (No. 25-11030) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 3, 2026.