Andrew Oldham

Andrew Oldham is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, appointed in 2018. He previously served as general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and as a deputy solicitor general of Texas.

Also known as Andrew S. Oldham, Andrew Stephen OldhamWebsite

What we have documented

We have documented 2 statements by Andrew Oldham, in 2 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Statements by Andrew Oldham

Andrew Oldham

Role at the time: Fifth Circuit judge writing in concurrence

October 23, 2026Defended or excused

Statement summary

In a concurrence, Judge Andrew Oldham responded to Judge Douglas's description of the government's history as a "sham history," writing that she may hold her own view of the history but that lower-court judges must follow Supreme Court precedent.

“While she’s entitled to her opinion on the history, the same cannot be said for Supreme Court precedent.”

Read the original textFifth Circuit en banc opinion in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitEn banc opinion; Southwick dissent on printed pages 100-131, followed by Haynes dissent

Why we used this label

The case concerns detaining these petitioners during removal proceedings without the individualized bond hearings they sought. Oldham defends the ruling upholding that detention and rejects the dissent's challenge to it, so we labeled it as defending the detention.

Read statement Full case: Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearings for three immigration detainees; dissenters invoke due process

Andrew Oldham

Role at the time: Fifth Circuit judge writing a separate concurrence

March 4, 2026Condemned

Statement summary

Oldham argues that actual malice lacks a constitutional basis and criticizes its application to public figures. He concurs in the result because his court is bound by Sullivan.

“why should the First Amendment protect some Americans less than it protects others?”

Read the original textBryant v. Rosenberg: Fifth Circuit decision and Oldham concurrenceOldham concurrence, pages 3-4

Why we used this label

Oldham criticizes retaining the actual-malice protection examined in this case. Following binding precedent is compliance rather than endorsement.

Read statement Full case: Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Case

Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearings for three immigration detainees; dissenters invoke due process

Relationship to this case: Speaker

The Fifth Circuit rejects three detainees' constitutional claims to individualized bond hearings. The en banc decision divides the judges over what due process requires during removal proceedings; dissenters argue that detention needs more justification.

Immigration Policy Criminal Justice PolicyUpdated October 25, 2026

Case

Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?

Relationship to this case: Speaker

Thomas and Gorsuch question the constitutional basis and present-day effects of actual malice. Defenders stress protection for criticism and reporting. The Court's June 2026 refusal to hear Dershowitz's challenge left the rule in place.

Free Speech Press FreedomUpdated October 19, 2026

Andrew Oldham

What we have documented

Want the next important update?

Statements by Andrew Oldham

Published cases

Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearings for three immigration detainees; dissenters invoke due process

Should the Supreme Court keep New York Times v. Sullivan's rule and its public-figure extensions?

Topics in this coverage