Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Thomas Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 24-60025 · judgment March 3, 2025
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before and a Fifth Circuit decision below.
Question presented
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine designed '"to protect the integrity of the judicial process' by 'prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions"' to gain an unfair advantage. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The doctrine targets those who "'deliberately"' mislead courts, not those whose inconsistent positions stem from "inadvertence or mistake." Id. at 750, 753. Courts regularly apply judicial estoppel when a debtor-plaintiff pursues a claim he failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court. The Eleventh, Ninth, Seventh, Sixth, and Fourth Circuits require courts to look at the totality of the circumstances and find that a debtor subjectively intended to mislead the bankruptcy court before applying judicial estoppel to bar a claim outside of the bankruptcy. In stark contrast, the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have embraced a "rigid" and "unforgiving" judicial estoppel rule in the bankruptcy context that bars claims regardless of whether there is evidence that a plaintiff actually intended to mislead. App. 55a. In those circuits, a debtor's failure to disclose a lawsuit to a bankruptcy court triggers judicial estoppel whenever the debtor knew the facts relevant to the undisclosed claim and had a potential motive for concealment-which is virtually always present in the bankruptcy context. The question presented is: Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Gregory George Garre
Latham & Watkins LLP
For respondent
William McGinley Jay
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
5 merits
(5 supporting pet./neither)
Argument & decision
Argued March 24, 2026 — Gregory G. Garre · William M. Jay. Audio and transcript
Decided June 11, 2026. Opinion by Jackson.
Proceedings
- Jul 13 2026Judgment Issued.
- Jun 11 2026Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Jackson, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion.
- Mar 24 2026Argued. For petitioner: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C.; and Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.
- Feb 26 2026Reply of petitioner Thomas Keathley filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 25 2026CIRCULATED
- Feb 23 2026Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
- Feb 23 2026Record received from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
- Feb 11 2026Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
- Feb 04 2026Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- Jan 30 2026SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
- Jan 29 2026Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
- Jan 27 2026Brief of respondent Buddy Ayers Constr., Inc. filed.
- Jan 09 2026Motion for a further extension of time within which to file respondent's brief on the merits is granted and the time is extended to and including January 27, 2026.
- Jan 02 2026Motion for a further extension of time to file respondent's brief on the merits filed.
- Dec 19 2025Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting vacatur filed.
- Dec 19 2025Brief amici curiae of National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, et al. filed.
- Dec 19 2025Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, et al. filed.
- Dec 19 2025Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed.
- Dec 12 2025Brief of petitioner Thomas Keathley filed.
- Dec 12 2025Joint appendix filed.
- Dec 08 2025Amicus brief of The Honorable Melanie Cyganowski (Ret.), et al., not accepted for filing. (To be corrected - December 10, 2025)
- Dec 08 2025Brief amici curiae of The Honorable Melanie Cyganowski (Ret.), et al. filed. (Corrected)
- Oct 31 2025Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 12, 2025. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 20, 2026.
- Oct 23 2025Motion for an extension of time filed.
- Oct 20 2025Petition GRANTED.
- Oct 14 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
- Sep 17 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
- Sep 16 2025Reply of petitioner Thomas Keathley filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 02 2025Brief of respondent Buddy Ayers Constr., Inc., in opposition filed.
- Jul 14 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 2, 2025.
- Jul 11 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 31, 2025 to September 2, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 27 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2025)