Mandate Means Mandate

In Wightman v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded fr a second time in a dental-network reimbursement dispute, holding that the district court – on remand from a prior Fifth Circuit reversal – had improperly refused to consider certain theories by concluding that those theories had been forfeited in the earlier appeal.

The Court court explained: “this court, not the district court, has the authority to determine whether to consider issues that may have been forfeited on appeal,” and that the district court’s refusal “violated the mandate rule, which requires a district court on remand to effect our mandate and to do nothing else.” No. 24-30775 (June 12, 2026).