Andrew S. Oldham
How Judge Oldham rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Oldham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In administrative review, Oldham confined the court to the eligibility rationale the agency gave in its decision. The agency could not defend the result in litigation by claiming that it had instead considered new evidence and denied reconsideration on the merits.
“Our analysis begins and ends with HHS’s stated ground for denying Dr. Doe’s motion for reconsideration.”
In an ERISA benefits case, Oldham compared the denial letter's assertions with the claimant's medical record and the plan's defined necessity standard. Vague statements that the patient was better could not support termination where the record documented ongoing symptoms and no concrete evidence showed that lower-level care was equivalent.
“United’s denial letters are not supported by the underlying medical evidence. In fact, they are contradicted by the record.”
Procedural preferences
In a qualified-immunity case, Oldham required the district court to decide the defense on a motion to dismiss before allowing discovery against the officials. Narrow immunity-related discovery becomes available only after the pleadings themselves allege facts sufficient to overcome the defense but leave a necessary factual issue unresolved.
“When defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, the district court may not defer ruling on that assertion.”
In a removed tribal-immunity case, Oldham applied the mandatory remand command without a futility exception. Once the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it could neither decide how the state court would treat the claims nor dismiss them with prejudice on the merits.
“We therefore hold, in accordance with the statute’s plain text and the great weight of authority from across the country, that § 1447(c) means what it says, admits of no exceptions, and requires remand even when the district court thinks it futile.”
Cautions
In the ERISA benefits case, Oldham treated meaningful administrative dialogue as an independent legal obligation. A medical-necessity denial had to identify the plan terms, address the clinical evidence, and explain the judgment applied; silence or post hoc litigation theories could not cure the failure.
“We cannot overstate the importance of a fiduciary’s duty to engage in a good faith ‘meaningful dialogue’ under the plan.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because the district court applied the correct legal standard and did not clearly err in finding Graves is a non-indigent person under 18 U.S.C. Section 3014, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“For these reasons, we hold pro se attorneys are ineligible for fee awards under FOIA. The judgments are AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons we have explained, we REVERSE in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“They have not identified a controlling precedent that 'squarely governs' the specific facts at issue. ... The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“BP contested that determination because West 'lost' nothing... We reverse.”
“He filed a petition for review asking us to revisit it instead. We deny the petition.”
“He now asks us to review the government's decision and to vacate the removal order. We deny the petition.”
“The district court did not err by denying the Hoyts' motions for remand but did err by granting Lane's motion for summary judgment. The judgment is AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The district court's orders are inconsistent with our mandate in the Policy 495 Decision.”
“Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, we have an independent obligation to assess our own jurisdiction... We remand to allow the district court to consider additional evidence regarding jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Circuit judges do not manage an assigned federal trial docket in their appellate role. Oldham had no prior judicial service before joining the Fifth Circuit.
Draft for Judge Oldham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oldham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oldham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace