⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Irwin versus Hill, a dispute over whether an old family settlement can block a new lawsuit seeking answers about a trust. Albert Hill the Third sued over the management of two Hunt family trusts and his rights as a beneficiary. That litigation was settled in 2010, with the agreement incorporated into a federal judgment. Among its terms was a waiver of rights to demand information or accountings from certain trusts while a party was not a current beneficiary. Years later, his daughter Caroline Hill brought a probate-court case about the separate Lyda Hunt–Margaret Trust. She alleges that her grandfather and his co-trustees improperly depleted and dissolved that trust, leaving nothing for the grandchildren. She seeks an accounting of what happened to its assets. The trust was dissolved in 2016, before her grandfather died the following year. The estate representatives opposing her suit say the settlement bars her claims and asked the federal court to stop the state proceedings. The district judge refused, holding that his continuing jurisdiction did not cover this separate trust and that the Anti-Injunction Act also barred the requested relief. The appellants' lawyer will argue that the settlement's broad language must be enforced as written. Hill's lawyer will argue that this trust was never adjudicated in the federal case and that the state suit should proceed. Listen for two distinct questions: what the parties promised, and what authority a federal court has to enforce that promise by stopping a state case.

Irwin v. Hill (No. 26-10106) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 2, 2026.