Three Opinions On Judicial Estoppel From U.S. Supreme Court (Kethley v. Buddy Ayers)

By: Donald L Swanson

Can a tortfeasor get off scott-free, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, because plaintiff fails to schedule the tort claim in plaintiff’s bankruptcy?

That’s the question before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kethley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., Case No. 25-6 (decided June 11, 2026).

In answering the question, the Supreme Court provides three separate opinions on the doctrine of judicial estoppel:

1. the unanimous majority opinion says, (i) the totality of all circumstances must be considered in applying the doctrine, and (ii) the Fifth Circuit’s narrower test is erroneous;
2. a two-Justice concurring opinion expresses ”doubt” about the foundational authority for the doctrine and wants the doctrine reexamined; and
3. a one-Justice concurring opinion insists, (i) the interests of plaintiff’s creditors are among the totality of circumstances to be considered, and (ii) “it may not ever make sense to apply judicial estoppel when bankruptcy proceedings are pending.”

What follows are summaries of (i) the facts of the case, and (ii) each of the three opinions.

Facts

Debtors (Husband and Wife) file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and confirm a plan that pays 100% of creditor claims over five years, without interest.

During the term of the confirmed plan, Husband has a car accident with a driver employed by Defendant.

Husband hires a personal injury attorney and informs his bankruptcy attorney of the intention to sue Defendant. But bankruptcy attorney fails to disclose the claim in the bankruptcy.

Then, Husband sues Defendant, who defends on grounds of judicial estoppel—i.e., seeks dismissal of the case for Husband’s failure to disclose the claim in the bankruptcy. So, Husband, (i) immediately discloses the personal injury claim in his bankruptcy proceeding, and (ii) asserts his belief that, by informing his bankruptcy attorney of the personal injury claim, he had done everything he needed to do.

The District Court disagrees and enters summary judgment for Defendant, dismissing the personal injury lawsuit. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirms, which then brings the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court for a reversal result.

Unanimous Majority Opinion—Ruling Narrowly

The Supreme Court’s unanimous majority opinion is narrow in its focus and can be summarized like this:

• after filing bankruptcy, debtor must disclose all assets to the bankruptcy court, including claims against third parties;
• occasionally, a bankruptcy debtor fails to disclose a claim against a third party and later attempts to press that claim in court—some lower courts have considered whether such a lawsuit should be dismissed under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from assuming inconsistent positions in successive litigation;
• this Court has never applied judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context, but we have suggested that judicial estoppel may be inapposite when the inconsistent positions are the result of “inadvertence or mistake”;
• here, the Fifth Circuit applied a rule that the omission of a claim in the bankruptcy will be considered inadvertent or a mistake only, (1) when the debtor was unaware of the underlying facts of his claim, or (2) where there was no hypothetical motive to conceal the claim;
• we reject the Fifth Circuit approach as erroneous; and
• courts should look to the totality of all circumstances surrounding the omission.

First Concurring Opinion—Questioning Judicial Estoppel

Two Justices join in a concurring opinion that:

• the majority opinion correctly concludes that the Fifth Circuit’s approach to judicial estoppel is not defensible;
• the foundation of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is doubtful;
• judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from asserting a position in one lawsuit that contradicts its position in a previous proceeding;
• lower federal courts have applied this doctrine broadly without clear authority to do so, and with only limited support from this Court’s precedents; and
• in a future case, we should reexamine it.

Second Concurring Opinion—Focusing on Debtor’s Creditors

One Justice focuses on the interests of creditors in a concurring opinion: “I write to address why it may not ever make sense to apply judicial estoppel when bankruptcy proceedings are pending.”

One of the principal justifications for judicial estoppel is that it prevents a party from using the “judicial process” to “derive an unfair advantage” by taking a position in one proceeding and an inconsistent position in a separate proceeding.

In bankruptcy, the “unfair advantage” a dishonest debtor gains by failing to disclose assets comes at the creditors’ expense and deprives them of potential recovery. From here, the argument goes, judicial estoppel is needed to deter that bankruptcy misconduct and to protect both the “integrity of the bankruptcy system” and “the rights of creditors to an equitable distribution of the assets of the debtor’s estate.”

The logic of such an argument is doubtful, which may account for why this Court has never applied judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context.  Here’s why it is doubtful:

• applying judicial estoppel to debtors still involved in open bankruptcies is more likely to hurt creditors than it is to help them; and
• the primary beneficiary is the potential tortfeasor—who escapes liability without having been prejudiced.

in this case, for example, if the District Court had not applied judicial estoppel, and if Husband had prevailed on the merits of the tort claim against Defendant, the money recovered could have been used to pay creditors interest or shorten the repayment period or both. By applying judicial estoppel, the courts below:

• prevented Husband from recovering any money at all and thus vaporized assets that could have been used for the creditors’ benefit; and
• gave Defendant, the employer of a tortfeasor, a windfall even though it was not involved in the bankruptcy and thus was neither misled nor impacted by the delayed disclosure.

Other options could have better served the underlying goals of judicial estoppel, because the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction over the bankruptcy and was in a better position than the District Court and the Fifth Circuit to address any harm to creditors caused by Debtor’s belated disclosure of the suit in the bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Court could have, for example, imposed sanctions, or modified the repayment plan, or converted the Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7. Judicial estoppel, by contrast, provides one remedy and one remedy only—dismissal of the tort claim.

Given that bankruptcy courts can craft remedies to alleviate any prejudice to creditors, it is difficult to see how using judicial estoppel to bar the debtor from pursuing a separate claim (which only harms creditors) is either needed or warranted.

A bankruptcy court is well positioned to mitigate any harms to the “integrity of the bankruptcy system,” and the judicial system generally, caused by inconsistent positions.

Any test for applying judicial estoppel, not only in the bankruptcy context but in other factual contexts as well, must ensure that it captures the totality of the circumstances and consistently leads to equitable applications. The majority opinion rightfully vacates the decision below.

Conclusion

It will be fascinating to see how the bankruptcy courts and their appellate overseers throughout the land apply these three opinions in future cases.

** If you find this article of value, please feel free to share. If you’d like to discuss, let me know.