Hello, this is Jeff Barnum reading the Supreme Court syllabus in Keithley versus Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated, sorcereroy to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Argued March 24, 2026, decided June 11th, 2026. Thomas Keithley and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in December 2019. The bankruptcy code requires debtors to file bankruptcy schedules listing their property, including claims against third parties, whether or not the debtor has filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment. Debtors must swear under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct. In April 2020, based on the Keithley's disclosures, the bankruptcy court confirmed an amended repayment plan providing for interest-free repayment of 100% of creditors' claims over five years. In August 2021, while the bankruptcy case remained open, Keithley was involved in a car accident in Mississippi with a driver employed by Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated. Keithley retained a personal injury attorney and informed his bankruptcy counsel that he intended to sue Buddy Ayers Construction. Neither Keithley nor his bankruptcy counsel disclosed the potential personal injury claim to the bankruptcy court. Keithley then filed a personal injury action in U.S. District Court in December of 2021, asserting negligence claims against the company, again without notifying the bankruptcy court. In March 2023, Buddy Ayres construction moved for summary judgment on grounds of judicial estoppel based on Keithley's failure to disclose his personal injury claims in the pending bankruptcy proceeding. Keithley immediately filed an amended schedule notifying the bankruptcy court of his pending claims. He then submitted affidavits in response to the motion for summary judgment, explaining that his omission had been inadvertent. The district court, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, found that Keithley knew of the facts underlying his claims and hypothetically had a motive to conceal, and therefore held the omission was not inadvertent or a mistake, entering summary judgment for Buddy Ayer's construction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, with one judge concurring, but expressing doubt that judicial estoppel's goals were advanced by its application, given evidence the omission was an honest mistake. To determine whether omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission. The Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment and preventing the risk of inconsistent court determinations. Some lower courts apply judicial estoppel to barn lawsuits by debtors who fail to disclose claims in bankruptcy proceedings, viewing the failure to disclose as an implicit representation that the claim does not exist. Assuming without deciding that judicial estoppel can apply in the bankruptcy context and that inadvertence or mistake can function as an exception to that application, the Fifth Circuit's rule is both too rigid and too broad. The rigidity comes from the Fifth Circuit's failure to fully recognize that judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Equity eschews mechanical rules. It depends on flexibility, and when a court conducts an equitable inquiry, it must act on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The Fifth Circuit's rule allows courts to consider only two circumstances, whether the debtor knew of the underlying facts and whether there was a potential motive to conceal, and does not permit courts to look at any other evidence tending to show the omission was inadvertent. That rigidity is out of step with equity. The Fifth Circuit's rule is also overly broad, because it holds that an omission falls outside the exception any time a debtor knows certain facts or could potentially benefit from non-disclosure, circumstances that will almost always be true as the Fifth Circuit recognized. A mere dispositive criterion is a poor fit for a fair inquiry into whether an omission is actually the result of inadvertence or mistake. Vacated and remanded. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Korsich joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Thank you for listening. Please help us by rating and reviewing this podcast, wherever you get your podcasts, and make sure you can you subscribe so you get all of the 25 decisions automatically delivered to your device. If you wish to communicate with the podcast, please email us at Scotusdecisions at gmail.com or click the link in the show notes. Thanks and have a great day.