⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Riggins versus Garcia, a lawsuit arising from a death in a Texas jail. After his arrest for driving while intoxicated, Mr. Riggins was booked into Grayson County Jail. Three days later, he was dead. His family alleges that he suffered severe alcohol withdrawal, including seizures, while held in an observation cell, and that jailers failed to summon medical care despite knowing he needed help. A district judge refused to dismiss the claims against four jailers, who now seek qualified immunity on appeal. That ruling allowed the claims to continue; it did not establish that the family's allegations were proved. The jailers will argue that the complaint does not adequately explain what each individual actually knew, and that the symptoms attributed to particular officers were ambiguous. The family will counter that the symptoms must be considered together with the observation-cell setting and each jailer's opportunity to see what was happening. Listen for the distinction between alleging that someone could have known of a danger and plausibly alleging that the person actually recognized it. How much can be inferred before discovery, and how specific must the allegations be for each defendant? And did earlier decisions clearly establish a duty to act in these circumstances? This is an early-stage appeal, not a trial deciding who caused Mr. Riggins's death.

Riggins v. Garcia (No. 26-40071) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.