Shows
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsKeisha Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation: Date Argued: January 30th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1776Case Summary:Keisha Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation is an employment‑discrimination and disability‑discrimination case arising from Ms. Lewis’s work at INDOT, now on appeal in the Seventh Circuit under docket number 25‑1776 after oral argument on January 30, 2026.At the lower court, Ms. Lewis, an African American woman with a kidney transplant, worked for the Indiana Department of Transportation in the Division of Real Estate, eventually serving as a Program Director responsible for administering state and federal relocation programs, overseeing displacement of persons by highway projects, and reviewing and approving relocation claim vouchers statewid...
2026-01-3131 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsKenny Faulk v. Dimerco Express USA Corp.:Date Argued: January 30th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-12603Case Summary:In the district court, Kenny Faulk proved a race‑discrimination hiring claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and obtained a multi‑million‑dollar jury verdict, and the case is now on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit under docket number 24‑12603 following the employer’s unsuccessful post‑trial challenge.At the lower court level, Faulk sued Dimerco Express USA Corp. in the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that Dimerco rescinded an account‑executive job offer because he is Black, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After a four‑day jury trial, the jury found in Faulk’s favor and awarded...
2026-01-3126 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsChicago Women in Trades v. Donald J. Trump: Date Argued: January 30th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2144Case Summary:Chicago Women in Trades v. Donald J. Trump is a federal civil rights case in which Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit that trains and supports women entering skilled trades, sued President Donald J. Trump and several federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to challenge two 2025 executive orders that seek to restrict and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and the case is now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, docket number 25‑2144, where it was argued on January 30, 2026....
2026-01-3141 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsC.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc.: Date Argued: January 30th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-13294Case Summary:C.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc. is a civil human‑trafficking case in which C.B., who was a minor at the time, alleges she was sex trafficked in June 2010 at the Hilltop Inn in Conley, Georgia, a hotel owned and operated by Naseeb Investments, Inc., and she now appeals an adverse summary‑judgment ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑13294, where the case was argued on January 30, 2026.At the lower‑court level, C.B. filed...
2026-01-3141 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsA.G. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc. (Consolidated with 25-10829, G.W. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc.,): Date Argued: January 30th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-10816Case Summary: A.G. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc. (consolidated on appeal with G.W. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc., No. 25‑10829) is a civil sex‑trafficking case in which minor plaintiffs allege that Northbrook Industries operated a hotel that knowingly benefited from and facilitated their trafficking, and they now appeal adverse rulings from the federal district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where the consolidated appeal (No. 25‑10816) was argued on January 30, 2026.In the lower court, each plaintiff (A.G. and G.W.) filed a separate civil action in the United States Distri...
2026-01-3132 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsHaymarket DuPage, LLC v. Village of Itasca:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2010Case Summary:Haymarket DuPage, LLC v. Village of Itasca arises from Haymarket DuPage, a nonprofit substance-abuse treatment provider, seeking zoning approval to convert a former hotel in Itasca, Illinois into a treatment center for individuals with substance-use disorders and related disabilities, and the Village’s subsequent denial of that request, leading to federal civil-rights litigation and now an appeal in the Seventh Circuit.At the lower court level in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22‑cv‑00160), Haymarket DuPage sued the Village of Itasca, the Itasca Plan Commission, Mayor Jeffrey Pruyn (official capacity), Itasca Fire Protec...
2026-01-3035 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsGun Owners of America, Inc. v. ATF: Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-5309Case Summary: Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. ATF is a Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment case now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in which a gun‑rights organization challenges a district court order requiring it to “claw back” and stop using documents that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously released without adequate redaction in response to a FOIA request.At the district court (lower court) level, the facts and posture were as follows, expressed in sentence form:Gun...
2026-01-3049 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsJohn Legros v. Secretary, Department of Corrections: Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-11693Case Summary:John Legros v. Secretary, Department of Corrections is a prisoner civil‑rights/habeas‑type appeal in which Florida inmate John Legros challenges the handling of his confinement and related constitutional claims, now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under docket number 24‑11693, with oral argument held on January 29, 2026.At the lower court level, Legros proceeded pro se in a prisoner constitutional and civil‑rights action against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections and other prison officials, alleging violations of his federal rights arising from the conditions and admi...
2026-01-3018 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsGrunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC: Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1305Case Summary:Grunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC arises from a trademark dispute in which TWD, LLC originally sued Grunt Style LLC in the Northern District of Illinois in 2018, alleging that Grunt Style’s use of the military‑themed slogan “THIS WE’LL DEFEND” on apparel infringed TWD’s registered trademark, but Grunt Style counterclaimed that it had prior and superior rights in the slogan and that TWD was in fact infringing Grunt Style’s mark. In the district court, the judge granted partial summary judgment for Grunt Style in April 2022, dismissing all of TWD’s claims and its affirmat...
2026-01-3029 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Cornelius Jackson:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-1776Case Summary: In the district court, Cornelius Jackson was prosecuted by the United States in a federal criminal case in the Seventh Circuit, and after the district court entered judgment against him, he appealed that judgment to the present court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where his case is docketed as No. 24‑1776 and was argued on January 29, 2026.
2026-01-3025 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsNautilus Insurance Company v. Bee Quality Inc.:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1912Case Summary:Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to Bee Quality Inc., a roofing contractor, covering certain work performed between February 8, 2022, and February 8, 2023, and then filed a declaratory-judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:23‑cv‑16782) seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bee Quality in an underlying lawsuit alleging that Bee Quality’s negligent repair work on a building façade contributed to a collapse that killed two people.In that district court action, Nautilus moved for judgment on the ple...
2026-01-3018 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsBanco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1144Case Summary: Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York arises from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s termination of Banco San Juan Internacional’s master account at the New York Fed, which the bank claims was unlawful under federal and state law.At the lower court level in the Southern District of New York, Banco San Juan Internacional, a Puerto Rico international banking entity, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System after FRBNY closed its master acco...
2026-01-301h 02
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsBardhan v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 1-24-0371Case Summary:Deb Bardhan, individually and as independent administrator of the estate of Arindam Bardhan, filed a medical negligence and wrongful death action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that Northwestern Memorial Hospital and other medical providers failed to timely diagnose and appropriately treat Arindam Bardhan’s cardiac condition, leading to his death. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the other defendants (through dismissal and/or summary judgment orders), and Deb Bardhan appealed that adverse judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where the case is now pe...
2026-01-301h 04
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsIn Re Quest Diagnostics Erisa Litigation: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-2866Case Summary: In re Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation is a putative ERISA class action in which participants in Quest’s profit‑sharing 401(k) plan challenge alleged fiduciary mismanagement of the plan, now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit under docket number 24‑2866, argued on January 28, 2026.At the lower‑court level in the District of New Jersey, participants and beneficiaries in the Quest Diagnostics Profit Sharing Plan sued Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the Quest Benefits Administration Committee, and the Quest Investment Committee, alleging that these fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and loya...
2026-01-3041 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsRadar Online LLC v. Federal Bureau of Investigation: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-1964Case Summary:Radar Online LLC v. Federal Bureau of Investigation is a Freedom of Information Act appeal in which Radar Online LLC and journalist James Robertson challenge the FBI’s withholding of records about financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking investigation and prosecution in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, docket number 24‑1964, where the case was argued on January 28, 2026.At the lower‑court level, Radar Online and Robertson sued the FBI in the Southern District of New York (case No. 1:17‑cv‑03956, Judge Paul G. Gardephe), alleging that the Bureau failed to timely respond...
2026-01-3031 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsSunday Egahi v. Pamela Bondi:Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 23-1974Case Summary:Sunday Egahi v. Pamela Bondi is a civil immigration-related appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, docket number 23‑1974, in which plaintiff‑appellant Sunday Egahi challenges the district court’s dismissal of his suit against Attorney General Pamela Bondi, with oral argument held on January 28, 2026.At the lower‑court level in the District of Maryland, Egahi brought a civil action under federal statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act challenging government action connected to his immigration case, specifically involving procedures related to an I‑360 VAWA self‑petition. The case was assigned to...
2026-01-3055 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsSkarbek v. Woodman's Food Market, Inc.:Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 2-25-0054Case Summary:Skarbek v. Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. is a civil appeal in which plaintiff Nikki Skarbek, the appellant, challenges an adverse judgment entered against her in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, with her case now pending in the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, under docket number 2‑25‑0054 and argued there on January 28, 2026.At the lower‑court level in Lake County, Skarbek filed a civil action against Woodman’s Food Market, Inc., asserting claims arising out of her employment or interactions with the grocery store (the precise legal theories and factual allegations are not descri...
2026-01-3038 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsOconee landing Property, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-10072Case Summary: Oconee Landing Property, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue is an Eleventh Circuit appeal from a U.S. Tax Court decision disallowing most of a large charitable deduction and imposing penalties arising from a syndicated conservation easement transaction.In the Tax Court (lower court), Oconee Landing Property, LLC claimed about $20.67 million in charitable contribution deductions for donating a conservation easement over roughly 355 acres in Greene County, Georgia to a qualified land trust, but the IRS disallowed the deduction and issued penalties, and the Tax Court (Lauber, J.) held that the easement’s fair ma...
2026-01-3023 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsPoppleton Now Community Association, Inc. v. La Cite Development, LLC:Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1770Case Summary:In the lower court, Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc. and six individual Poppleton residents sued La Cite Development, LLC, several related developer entities and their principal, current and former Baltimore City officials (including the Mayor, City Council, Housing Authority, and former Mayor Sheila Dixon), alleging that a 2006 Land Disposition and Development Agreement giving La Cité 13.8 acres in the Poppleton Urban Renewal Area—much of it to be assembled by eminent domain—was an unconstitutional taking and violated their equal protection and due process rights, as well as constituting private nuisance and unjust enrichment, because it indef...
2026-01-3045 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsAlison Reedy v. Huron School District: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1234Case Summary:In the district court, Alison Reedy, as next friend on behalf of her minor son D.R., brought a federal civil‑rights suit against the Huron School District and related officials and agencies, and she now appeals to the Sixth Circuit from an adverse judgment.More specifically, Reedy filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) under case number 2:23‑cv‑10221, alleging civil‑rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related theories arising from how the Huron School District, its administrators, the Huron Township Police Department, individua...
2026-01-3028 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsAlex Reinig et al v. RBS Citizens NA: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1076Case Summary:the district court, Alex Reinig and other mortgage loan officers brought a wage‑and‑hour collective and class action alleging systemic underpayment of overtime, and the case is now on appeal in the Third Circuit under docket 25‑1076 with argument on January 28, 2026.In the Western District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs, mortgage loan officers employed by RBS Citizens, N.A. (Citizens Bank), alleged that Citizens maintained an unofficial “policy to violate the policy” by requiring or encouraging MLOs to work more than 40 hours per week off the clock while discouraging them from reporting all overtime, thereby fa...
2026-01-2942 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Myelicia Rodgers:Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-10638Case Summary: United States v. Myelicia Rodgers is a federal criminal appeal in which Myelicia Rodgers, a criminal defendant, is challenging the judgment entered against her in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑10638, with oral argument held before that court on January 28, 2026.At the lower-court level, Rodgers was prosecuted in federal district court and convicted in a criminal case, after which she received a sentence that she now seeks to overturn or modify on appeal, and that district‑court judgment forms the basis of the present Eleventh Circuit proceeding.
2026-01-2927 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsFulton v. Noem: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-194Case Summary:In Fulton v. Noem, Raheem Delano Fulton brought a habeas and related civil action in federal district court challenging the federal government’s plan to remove him from the United States without providing the medical discharge planning and post‑release medications he needs to survive, and he now pursues his appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, docket number 25‑194, argued on January 28, 2026.At the lower court, Fulton, an individual with a final order of removal, alleged that Department of Homeland Security and related officials were violating binding agency rules...
2026-01-2930 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsRichmond v. Sorensen: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-241Case Summary: Richmond v. Sorensen is a federal civil employment‑discrimination case brought by plaintiff Julia Richmond against defendant Alan J. Sorensen arising out of the termination of her employment as deputy commissioner of the Orange County Planning Department and director of the County’s Transportation Council, with the case now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under docket number 25‑241 and argued on January 28, 2026.At the lower court level in the Southern District of New York (case no. 7:22‑cv‑10075 (VB)), Richmond alleged that Sorensen, who became commissioner in March 2020...
2026-01-2929 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsPeng Guo v. Michigan Tech University: Date Argued: January 28th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-1891Case Summary:Docket Number: 24-1891Peng Guo v. Michigan Tech University arises from a pregnancy discrimination suit brought by Dr. Peng Guo, a former accounting professor at Michigan Technological University, who alleges that the university discriminated against her in violation of Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).In the lower court, Dr. Guo filed suit in January 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (case no. 2:21‑cv‑00009), alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and pregnancy. After pretrial rulings that narrowed her claims, she proceede...
2026-01-2933 min
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaBerk v. Choy - Date Delivered 20th January, 2026 Case Summary: Harold R. Berk injured his ankle while visiting Delaware and went to Beebe Medical Center for treatment, where he was seen by Dr. Wilson Choy and other providers for what was diagnosed as a fracture that did not require immediate surgery. Hospital staff placed his leg in a boot and, in the course of doing so, allegedly twisted and aggravated the fracture, after which Berk was discharged with instructions to avoid bearing weight and to return for follow‑up care. At a follow‑up visit about a month later at Dr. Choy’s office, new X‑rays...
2026-01-2849 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsF. F. v. Valley View Community Unit Sch: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2735Case Summary:At the lower court level, F. F. v. Valley View Community Unit School District 365U was a federal civil-rights and education case in which a parent, on behalf of a minor student identified as F.F., sued Valley View Community Unit School District 365U and related defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case number 1:25‑cv‑09112, challenging the district’s school policies on constitutional and statutory grounds and seeking, among other relief, a preliminary injunction that the district court (Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman) denied on September 30, 2025; the case is now on...
2026-01-2831 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsGeoffrey Anderson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-13509Case Summary:In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs Multimedia Technologies, Inc., Geoffrey Anderson, and Peach Hospitality of Georgia, LLC sued the City of Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that the City’s efforts to force removal of two long‑existing billboard signs and to enforce related arrest citations violated their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including free speech and due process protections. The suit arose after Atlanta, having previously permitted the signs under its 1982 sign code and later amended its code in 2015, demanded removal of Multimedia’s nonconforming signs, and wh...
2026-01-2830 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsAristy-Rosa v. Atty Gen USA: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1490Case Summary:At the lower level, the case involves an immigration removal proceeding against Jose Aristy‑Rosa, which resulted in a final administrative decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on petition for review.Jose Arcenio Aristy‑Rosa, a noncitizen with prior criminal convictions, was placed in removal proceedings in immigration court, where an Immigration Judge denied his applications for relief and ordered him removed from the United States; the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal and upheld the remo...
2026-01-2821 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Adam Power: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1469Case Summary:United States v. Adam Power is a federal criminal appeal in which Adam Power challenges his federal child‑exploitation sentence in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, docket number 25‑1469, after pleading guilty in the district court to dozens of counts involving sexual exploitation of minors and related child‑pornography offenses and receiving a 60‑year prison term, with the appeal argued on January 27, 2026.
2026-01-2831 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsVivian Ruggeri, Appellee/Cross v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, Appellant/Cross: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-10903Case Summary:In the district court, Vivian Ruggeri won a maritime personal injury action against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd arising from injuries she suffered on a cruise ship tender, and the case is now on cross-appeals in the Eleventh Circuit, where she is the appellee/cross‑appellant and NCL is the appellant/cross‑appellee.At the lower court level, Ruggeri filed suit in the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 20‑cv‑21961‑DPG), alleging that she was injured on October 25, 2019, when an NCL tender ferrying passengers between the pier at Cannes, France and the Norwegian Epic was operated n...
2026-01-2835 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsTajinder Singh v. Pamela Bondi: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1521Case Summary:Tajinder Singh v. Pamela Bondi is an immigration petition for review in which Tajinder Singh challenges a removal‑related decision involving claims for protection from return to India, now before the present federal court of appeals under docket number 25‑1521 and argued on January 27, 2026,
2026-01-2820 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Deshon Hill: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-2972Case Summary: United States v. Deshon Hill is a federal criminal case in which Deshon Hill was convicted in the district court and is now challenging that judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, docket number 24‑2972, where oral argument was held on January 27, 2026.
2026-01-2818 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsPeople v. Gaines: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 4-25-0290Case Summary:People v. Gaines (Richard L. Gaines), docket number 4‑25‑0290, is a criminal appeal in which the defendant seeks review in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, of his conviction and sentence entered by the circuit court, with oral argument held in the present court on January 27, 2026, following the trial court’s judgment in favor of the People of the State of Illinois.
2026-01-2848 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsDi Fraia v. Ransom: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-2673Case Summary:In Di Fraia v. Ransom, Jonathan DiFraia is appealing from the dismissal of his federal civil-rights and disability-discrimination suit arising out of the termination of his medication for opioid use disorder while incarcerated in a Pennsylvania state facility, with the appeal now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit under docket number 24‑2673 and argued on January 27, 2026.At the district court level, DiFraia filed suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, case number 1:23‑cv‑01187, against prison officials including Kevin Ransom, alleging that prison staff stopped his medically prescribed medication for op...
2026-01-2853 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsGregg Bochat v. Ambit Illinois, LLC: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1325Case Summary:In Bochat et al. v. Ambit Illinois, LLC et al., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:24‑cv‑03116), plaintiffs Gregg Bochat and Philip Simons sued Ambit Illinois, LLC, Vistra Corp, and Volt Asset Company, Inc., alleging contract‑based claims on behalf of themselves and similarly situated retail electricity customers arising out of the defendants’ provision of alternative electric supply service and related billing practices; after the district court (Judge Manish Shah) entered an adverse ruling against the plaintiffs, they appealed, and the case is now pend...
2026-01-2831 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsNorthfield Insurance Company v. North Brook Industries, Inc.: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-13333Case Summary:In the lower court, Northfield Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, case number 1:23‑cv‑03596, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, North Brook Industries, Inc., doing business as United Inn and Suites, in an underlying sex‑trafficking civil action brought by a victim identified as J.G.; the district court issued a partial order holding that Northfield does have a duty to defend North Brook in that underlying action, and Northfield has appealed that interlocutory ruling...
2026-01-2832 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsKylie McKenzie v. United States Tennis Association Incorporated: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-12966Case Summary:In the lower court, Kylie McKenzie sued the United States Tennis Association Incorporated and USTA Player Development Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:22‑cv‑00615), alleging that while she was a young professional player training in the USTA’s player development program, her coach, Anibal Aranda, sexually assaulted her in 2018 and that the USTA was grossly negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising him despite prior warnings and reports about his sexually predatory behavior, ultimately leading to a jury verdict awarding her a total of 9 million dollars in compen...
2026-01-2833 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsBallard Spahr LLP v. Official Committee of Equity Security: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026 ; Docket Number: 25-2134Case Summary:Ballard Spahr LLP v. Official Committee of Equity Security Holders is a civil bankruptcy-related appeal in which the law firm Ballard Spahr LLP is challenging an adverse ruling in favor of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders and related parties, with the appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit under docket number 25‑2134 and oral argument held before that court on January 27, 2026.
2026-01-2821 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Jddarrian Irons: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-12112Case Summary:United States v. Jddarrian Irons is a federal criminal appeal in which Jddarrian Christopher Irons, the defendant in the underlying prosecution, is challenging the judgment entered against him in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑12112, with oral argument held before that court on January 27, 2026.
2026-01-2833 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited Sates v. Alexander Alli: Date Argued: January 27th, 2026; Docket Number: 24-11945Case Summary:United States v. Alexander Alli is a federal criminal appeal in which Alexander Alli, the defendant in the underlying criminal case, is appealing his conviction and/or sentence in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑11945, with oral argument held on January 27, 2026
2026-01-2830 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsRinat Akhmetshin v. William Browder: Date Argued: January 26th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-7008Case Summary:Rinat Akhmetshin v. William Browder is a defamation case in which lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin sued investor and activist William Browder, alleging that Browder falsely accused him of being a Russian intelligence operative and of involvement in hacking and other wrongdoing, and the court ultimately ruled in Browder’s favor, finding that Akhmetshin did not prove the statements were actionable defamation under the applicable standards.
2026-01-271h 19
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Gamble: Date Argued: January 22nd, 2026 Docket Number: 23-2105Case Summary:United States v. Gamble, No. 23‑2105, involves a federal criminal defendant, Michael Gamble, whose case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was argued on January 22, 2026. Before reaching the Third Circuit, Gamble was prosecuted in federal district court, where he faced charges arising out of federal criminal conduct, was convicted and sentenced, and then filed an appeal challenging aspects of his conviction and/or sentence, leading to the docketed appeal now before the court of appeals.
2026-01-2540 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsBay Area Unitarian v. Ogg: Date Argued: January 23rd, 2026 Docket Number: 23-20165Case Summary:Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church and two Houston coffee businesses, Antidote Coffee and Perk You Later, brought a First Amendment challenge to Texas gun‑trespass signage laws, arguing that the statutes force them to post large, highly specific handgun‑exclusion signs if they want to keep all guns off their private property, while only minimal signage is required to exclude other items or people. In the Southern District of Texas, they sued Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg and several local law‑enforcement officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, and during the case the court grante...
2026-01-251h 11
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsAnash Inc v. Borough Kingston: Date Argued: January 22nd, 2026; Docket Number: 25-1097Case Summary:Anash, Inc., doing business as Wyoming Valley Yeshiva, and Rabbi Shimon Hellinger filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Borough of Kingston and local officials, challenging the condemnation and zoning-related closure of two properties at 44 and 239 Pierce Street used for religious and educational activities, and alleging religious discrimination under RLUIPA and the First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process violations, and related state-law claims. In the district court, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the zoning and...
2026-01-2557 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsPeople v. Johnson: Date Argued: January 22nd, 2026; Docket Number: 2-25-0165Case Summary:In People v. Johnson (Docket No. 2-25-0165), the defendant was prosecuted in an Illinois trial court for driving under the influence of alcohol after an incident in which he was found slumped over in a vehicle at a gas pump, exhibiting multiple signs of impairment observed by responding officers. Before trial, the defense moved to suppress evidence arising from the stop and investigation, arguing that the police lacked sufficient justification, but the trial court denied the motion, and after a stipulated bench trial the court entered a judgment of conviction for DUI, which became...
2026-01-2541 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. State of Texas: Date Argued: January 22nd, 2026; Docket Number: 24-50149Case Summary: The United States sued the State of Texas, the Governor, and state officials in federal district court to challenge Texas Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), a state law that creates new state crimes for unlawful entry and reentry by noncitizens and authorizes state officers and judges to arrest, prosecute, and order the removal of noncitizens based on immigration violations. The federal government alleged that S.B. 4 is preempted because Congress has given the federal government exclusive authority over immigration and because the Texas scheme conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act by creating a parallel state...
2026-01-251h 05
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsW.M.M. v. Trump: Date Argued: January 22nd, 2026; Docket Number: 25-10534Case Summary:W.M.M. v. Trump is a habeas class-action challenge brought by Venezuelan detainees held in Texas after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) through a March 2025 presidential proclamation to detain and remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. After the Supreme Court ruled in related litigation that challenges to removal under the AEA must be filed in the districts of detention and that detainees must receive sufficient notice and opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal, W.M.M. and others filed...
2026-01-2555 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsUnited States v. Andre De Moya: Date Argued: January 23rd, 2026; Docket Number: 24-3013Case Summary:Andre De Moya, a Washington, D.C.–area concert venue operator and bar owner, was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for his role in a multiyear bribery scheme involving a senior official at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue. Federal prosecutors alleged that De Moya and a co-defendant paid bribes to the tax official in exchange for erasing or reducing hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liabilities owed by their nightlife businesses, including a prominent concert venue. A federal jury found De Moya guilty of br...
2026-01-251h 29
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsNimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc.: Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-2292 Case Summary:NimbeLink Corp., a subsidiary of Airgain that develops Skywire cellular modem technology, sued Digi International Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging that certain Digi Internet of Things connectivity products infringed two NimbeLink patents related to its Skywire cellular modems, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,497,570 and 9,838,066. In a lawsuit filed in September 2022, NimbeLink asserted these patent claims and also brought contract-based claims, but the district court later dismissed the contract claims and, on March 14, 2024, issued a ruling finding all of NimbeLink’s asserted patent claims invalid, prompting NimbeLink to appeal th...
2026-01-2548 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsSwearengen v. Army: Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-2050 Case Summary: Marcus L. Swearengen was a civilian Electronics Mechanic Leader for the Department of the Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, who was removed from his position based on two agency charges: making inappropriate remarks to a coworker and creating a disruption in the workplace during a loud verbal exchange in the shop bay that other employees could hear. He appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, where an administrative judge initially sustained both charges and the penalty of removal, and the full Board later modified that outcome by finding the “inappropriate remarks” charge unproven whil...
2026-01-2524 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsNetflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC: Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-1541Case Summary:Netflix, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of DivX, LLC’s patents relating to streaming video technology, including features such as trick‑play functionality (fast‑forward, rewind, and scene skipping) and handling encrypted multimedia content on playback devices. In IPR proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected Netflix’s invalidity challenges, finding, among other things, that Netflix had not adequately shown certain prior‑art references were analogous and that Netflix failed to carry its burden on key claim‑construction and obviousness arguments, prompting Netflix to appeal those PTAB decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals f...
2026-01-2532 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsIPA Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC: Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-1246Case Summary:IPA Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of WiLAN that licenses patents originally developed at SRI International, sued Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Google’s virtual assistant technologies, such as Google Assistant, infringe several patents related to speech‑based control and intelligent personal assistant architectures. After the district court entered judgment in Google’s favor in this infringement dispute, IPA Technologies appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (No. 24‑1246), leading to the oral argument heard in IPA Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC.
2026-01-2525 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsKandel v. US: Argued on 01/12/2026: Appeal No: 24-2193Case Summary:Gerald K. Kandel and a class of former employees brought a pay‑related class action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, ultimately securing two lump‑sum settlements approved by that court in 2020 and 2021 totaling just over $305,000 for the class. After those settlements, the plaintiffs moved under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(b)) to require the United States to pay additional money into the settlement fund to cover attorney fees, of‑counsel fees, and class administration costs, an amount they calculated at about $3.64 million. The Court of Federal Claims...
2026-01-2535 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsMiller v. Collins: Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-1790Case Summary:James E. Miller is a veteran who sought to obtain an earlier effective date for service-connected disability benefits for a heart disorder, based on VA proceedings that began in the 1970s. In 1978, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals considered his claim, and in 1980 the VA sent him a letter requesting new and material evidence relating to that decision. Years later, Miller argued that the earlier VA and Board actions concerning his heart condition should not be treated as final and that, at the time of those decisions, he had no access to judicial review of VA de...
2026-01-2521 min
Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of AppealsQ Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. - Argued on 01/12/2026; Appeal No: 24-1667Case Summary:Q Technologies, Inc., a technology company that owns patents covering methods of sharing digital content using unique identifiers, sued Walmart, Inc. in the Western District of Texas for patent infringement based on patents including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,635,108, 10,567,473, and 10,594,774. Walmart moved for summary judgment, arguing that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the district court, applying the Alice framework, agreed that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of organizing and retrieving information by identifiers and lacked any inventive concept beyond routine computer implementation. After a final pretrial conference, the c...
2026-01-2526 min
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaEllingburg v. United States: Delivered on 20 January, 2026Case Summary:Ellingburg v. United States involves a federal defendant, Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who robbed a First Union National Bank before the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) became law, but was sentenced after its enactment and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution under that Act. Ellingburg committed the bank robbery in 1995, was indicted in 1996 on federal bank robbery charges, pleaded guilty, and received a prison term plus a restitution order to the bank, which he has still not fully paid. Years later, he challenged his ongoing restitution obligation under the Ex Post Facto Clause on the ground...
2026-01-2257 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesTrump, President of U.S. v. Cook: Date Argued - 21 January, 2026 Case Summary:Trump, President of the U.S. v. Cook arises from President Donald Trump’s attempt in August 2025 to remove Lisa Cook, a Senate-confirmed member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors serving a 14‑year term, on the ground that she allegedly committed mortgage fraud before joining the Board by designating two different properties as her primary residence on separate loan applications. After the removal letter issued, Cook challenged the action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” removal protection limits the President to removin...
2026-01-221h 58
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaConey Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton: Judgment Delivered on 20 January, 2025 Case Summary: Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, entered bankruptcy in 2014 and initiated adversarial proceedings against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., to collect $50,000 in allegedly unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro attempted to serve process on Coney Island by mail but purportedly failed to comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(3)’s mail-service requirements. Coney Island did not file an answer, and the Bankruptcy Court entered a default judgment. Over the next six years, Vista-Pro’s bankruptcy trustee attempted to enforce the judgment. These efforts bore fruit in 2021 when a marshal seized funds from Coney Island’s bank account in satisfaction of the...
2026-01-2119 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesM & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund: Date Argued - 2oth January, 2026Case Summary:M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund is a case about whether an employer is obligated to contribute to a multiemployer pension fund under a collective bargaining agreement and related plan documents, and whether the fund’s trustees correctly interpreted those documents when claiming contributions were owed, but a precise sentence‑format rule or holding cannot be given here because the necessary case details cannot be accessed at the moment.
2026-01-2157 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesWolford v. Lopez: Date Argued - 2oth January, 2026Case Summary:Wolford v. Lopez is a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s law that makes it a crime for licensed handgun carriers to bring a firearm onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission, with the plaintiffs arguing this default ban unconstitutionally burdens public carry while the State defends it as consistent with historical regulations and property owners’ right to exclude, and the Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision in the case.
2026-01-211h 51
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaGoldey v. FieldsCase Summary:In Clark v. Sweeney, a Maryland jury convicted Jeremiah Sweeney of second-degree murder and related offenses after a shooting that killed a bystander about 75 yards away during an argument over stolen marijuana, and the conviction was later affirmed on direct appeal. After trial, it emerged that one juror had independently visited the crime scene; the court dismissed that juror and continued deliberations with 11 jurors. In later state postconviction and then federal habeas proceedings, Sweeney argued only that trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland for failing to voir dire the entire jury to determine whether any...
2026-01-2008 min
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaClark v. SweeneyCase Summary:A Maryland jury convicted Jeremiah Sweeney of second-degree murder and related offenses after he fired shots during an argument over stolen marijuana, missing his intended targets but killing a bystander about 75 yards away. During trial, one juror independently visited the crime scene, and after this was disclosed, the parties agreed to dismiss that juror and continue deliberations with 11 jurors, which led to Sweeney’s convictions being affirmed on direct appeal and the denial of state postconviction relief. Sweeney then sought federal habeas relief, arguing only that his trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington fo...
2026-01-2007 min
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaPitts v. MississippiCase Summary:In May 2020, Jeffrey Clyde Pitts’s young daughter, A.G.C., spent a weekend visiting him, and after returning home she told her mother that he had sexually abused her, which led to criminal charges. At trial, the prosecution requested that a physical screen be placed between A.G.C. and Pitts while she testified, so that the judge and jury could see her but she could not see her father. The State relied on a Mississippi statute that grants child witnesses a right to such a screen, and the trial judge approved the request, ex...
2026-01-2011 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesGalette v. NJ Transit Corp.: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. arises from an August 9, 2018 collision in Philadelphia, where Cedric Galette, riding as a passenger in a stopped vehicle driven by Julie McCrey, was injured when a New Jersey Transit bus struck their car. Galette sued McCrey and New Jersey Transit in Pennsylvania state court for negligence, and New Jersey Transit moved to dismiss, arguing it is an “arm of the State of New Jersey” entitled to interstate sovereign immunity from being sued in Pennsylvania; after the trial court and intermediate appellate court rejected that immunity claim, the Pennsylvania Supreme Cour...
2026-01-201h 09
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesWest Virginia v. B. P. J. : Oral ArgumentCase Summary: West Virginia v. B. P. J. arises from a challenge by Becky Pepper‑Jackson, a transgender girl in West Virginia, to the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which bars transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams. As an 11‑ to 15‑year‑old middle‑ and high‑school runner who has taken puberty blockers and publicly lived as a girl for years, she sued the state education authorities and West Virginia after the law threatened to exclude her from her school’s girls’ cross‑country and track‑and‑field teams, alleging that enforcing the...
2026-01-201h 21
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesLittle v. Hecox: Oral ArgumentCase Summary; Little v. Hecox arises from Idaho’s 2020 “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” (HB 500), which bars transgender girls and women, and any student designated male at birth, from competing on female sports teams at public schools and public colleges, and includes a sex‑verification process that can require invasive exams if an athlete’s sex is disputed. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University who wanted to compete on the women’s cross‑country team, together with a cisgender high‑school girl concerned about being subjected to sex verification, sued Idaho officials includin...
2026-01-201h 52
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesChevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish grows out of a set of Louisiana coastal‑damage suits in which Plaquemines Parish and other local governments allege that Chevron and other oil and gas companies’ decades of exploration and production activities in the coastal zone, such as dredging canals, drilling, and failing to comply with Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act permitting scheme, eroded wetlands and harmed waterways, and seek money damages and restoration costs. Chevron, a vertically integrated company that both produced crude oil in Louisiana and refined aviation gasoline for the federal govern...
2026-01-201h 17
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesCox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment: Oral ArgumentCase Summary: Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment arises from a suit by Sony and other record labels alleging that Cox’s internet customers used its service to download and share pirated music, after Cox received millions of infringement notices identifying specific subscriber accounts. In the Eastern District of Virginia, Sony proceeded on theories of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, presenting evidence that Cox knew particular subscribers were repeatedly infringing yet chose not to terminate their service and operated an intentionally lax “repeat infringer” policy that disqualified it from the DMCA safe harbor. A jury found Cox liable...
2026-01-201h 40
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesUrias-Orellana v. Bondi, Att'y Gen.: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Urias-Orellana v. Bondi involves Douglas Humberto Urias‑Orellana, his wife, and their child, Salvadoran nationals who entered the United States without authorization in 2021 and conceded removability but applied for asylum and Convention Against Torture protection based on escalating threats and one physical assault tied to gang extortion in El Salvador. An immigration judge found Urias‑Orellana credible but concluded that the threats and single non‑hospitalizing assault, combined with his ability to relocate within El Salvador for periods without incident, did not amount to “past persecution” or a well‑founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Imm...
2026-01-2058 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesFirst Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin arises from a 2023 administrative subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin to First Choice, a Christian, pro‑life nonprofit that operates pregnancy centers and provides counseling, information about abortion, and abortion‑pill‑reversal services. The subpoena, issued under New Jersey consumer‑protection and charitable‑solicitation laws, demands the names of nearly 5,000 donors along with more than a decade of internal records, including solicitation materials, advertising, personnel information, complaint files, and documents substantiating medical and cost claims on First Choice’s websites, all based on alleged deceptive prac...
2026-01-201h 22
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesOlivier v. City of Brandon: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Olivier v. City of Brandon arises from Gabriel Olivier’s street‑preaching near a concert at the Brandon, Mississippi amphitheater, where he used signs and a loudspeaker to evangelize on sidewalks and grassy areas just outside the venue. After the city adopted an ordinance confining all “protests” to a remote designated zone in the park, the police chief ordered Olivier to move there; when he returned to the higher‑traffic area so concertgoers could actually hear him, officers arrested and charged him under the ordinance, he pled no contest and paid a fine, and he later file...
2026-01-201h 24
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesTrump, President of United States v. Slaughter: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Trump, President of the United States v. Slaughter arises from President Donald Trump’s March 2025 decision to fire Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter before the end of her fixed term, even though the FTC Act provides that commissioners may be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump notified Slaughter by email that keeping her on the Commission would be inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities and did not claim any statutory “for cause” ground, prompting Slaughter to sue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on...
2026-01-202h 30
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesNRSC v. FEC: Oral Argument Case Summary:Case Summary: NRSC v. FEC (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission) arises from a 2022 lawsuit in which the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then‑Senator J.D. Vance, and then‑Representative Steve Chabot challenged federal limits on how much national party committees can spend in coordinated expenditures with their own candidates under 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). They filed in the Southern District of Ohio under FECA’s special review provision, which required the district court to certify the constitutional questions directly to the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc; t...
2026-01-202h 10
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesFS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund involves a group of closed‑end investment funds, including FS Credit Opportunities Corp., that adopted “control‑share” provisions (mirroring Maryland’s Control Share Acquisition Act) to restrict the voting rights of any shareholder whose holdings would reach or exceed 10% of a fund’s voting power, which the funds said would protect long‑term investors from short‑term activist takeovers. Activist investor Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. acquired large positions in several of these funds and then sued in the Southern District of New York, arguing that the control‑shar...
2026-01-201h 18
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesHamm v. Smith: Oral ArgumentCase Summary: Hamm v. Smith involves Alabama death-row prisoner Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted of capital murder for killing Durk Van Dam during a 1998 robbery and sentenced to death. Over the years, Smith received five full-scale IQ scores ranging from roughly 72 to 78 (with measurement error meaning his IQ could be as low as about 69), and he sought state postconviction and then federal habeas relief arguing that, under Atkins v. Virginia, his intellectual disability makes him categorically ineligible for execution. After state courts rejected his claim without an evidentiary hearing, the federal district court held a hearing...
2026-01-202h 01
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesHencely v. Fluor Corp.: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Hencely v. Fluor Corp. arises from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, where an Afghan national, Ahmad Nayeb, employed by a subcontractor of Fluor Corporation, detonated an explosive vest using materials from his job, killing several people and seriously injuring U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely. Fluor was working under a Department of Defense logistics contract that required it to hire and supervise local Afghan workers as part of the “Afghan First” program, and Hencely sued Fluor in federal court under South Carolina tort law (negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, negligent retention, and rela...
2026-01-181h 29
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesRico v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Rico v. United States involves Isabel Rico, who was sentenced in 2010 to 84 months in prison and four years of supervised release for a federal drug offense, then began serving her supervised release in 2017. In 2018, she absconded, stopping all contact with her probation officer, while 37 months of supervised release remained. After she was arrested in January 2023 and charged with new violations, the district court, applying the judge‑made “fugitive tolling” doctrine, treated her supervised release term as having been paused during the years she was a fugitive and thus still running, revoked her release, and resentenced her to...
2026-01-1854 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesConey Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton arises from a 2015 adversary proceeding in the Vista-Pro Automotive bankruptcy, where Vista-Pro (a Tennessee auto-parts manufacturer) sued Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., a New York corporation, in the Tennessee bankruptcy court to recover approximately $49,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista‑Pro served the summons and complaint by first‑class mail addressed only to “Coney Island Auto Parts Unltd., Inc.” at its Brooklyn business address, without naming or directing service to any officer or registered agent, Coney Island never appeared, and the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment in May 2015, which Vi...
2026-01-1835 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesHain Celestial Group v. Palmquist: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist arises from a products‑liability suit brought by Grant and Sarah Palmquist on behalf of their son E.P., alleging that his physical and mental decline and diagnosis of heavy‑metal poisoning were caused by consuming Hain’s Earth’s Best organic baby foods purchased from Whole Foods. The Palmquists originally sued Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court, Hain removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, the district court dismissed non‑diverse Whole Foods as improperly joined, denied remand, and then granted judgment as a matter of law in...
2026-01-1841 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesLearning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump involves two family-owned educational toy companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, which import most of their products from China and other countries. They claimed that new emergency tariffs ordered by President Donald Trump would dramatically raise their costs and harm their businesses. In April 2025 they sued the President and several federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose broad import tariffs in response to a declared national emergency, that...
2026-01-182h 39
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesLandor v. LA DOC: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections involves Damon Landor, a Rastafarian incarcerated in Louisiana whose religious beliefs require him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. After Landor showed prison officials a Fifth Circuit decision stating that forcibly cutting a Rastafarian prisoner’s hair violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), officers allegedly threw the opinion in the trash, strapped him down, and shaved his head bald, leading Landor, after his release, to sue the DOC secretary, the warden, and involved guards for money damages under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. The...
2026-01-181h 50
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesGEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal: Oral ArgumentCase Summary: GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal arises from a class action filed by former and current civil immigration detainees at GEO’s Aurora, Colorado detention facility, alleging that GEO ran two unlawful labor schemes inside the center. First, they claim GEO’s “Sanitation Policy” forced detainees, under threat of punishment such as solitary confinement or loss of privileges, to clean common areas of the housing units for no pay; second, they allege GEO’s “Voluntary Work Program” paid detainees only $1 per day for other facility jobs, unjustly enriching GEO in violation of Colorado law and constituting forced labor u...
2026-01-1856 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesFernandez v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Fernandez v. United States arises from Joe Fernandez’s federal convictions in the Southern District of New York for participating in a murder‑for‑hire scheme, based largely on testimony from a cooperating witness, Darge, after which the court imposed two consecutive life sentences while his co‑defendants received much shorter terms ranging from two to thirty years. Years later, Fernandez moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that doubts about Darge’s credibility, the large sentencing disparity between him and his co‑defendants, harsh prison conditions during the COVID‑19 pandemic, and his post‑se...
2026-01-181h 21
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesRutherford v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:Rutherford v. United States arises from Daniel Rutherford’s federal convictions for two Hobbs Act robberies and two associated firearm counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for which the district court imposed a total prison term of about 42½ years, including a “stacked” 32‑year mandatory minimum on the firearm counts (7 years for the first, 25 years for the second) plus 125 months on the robbery counts. After the First Step Act later eliminated this kind of stacking for defendants sentenced after its enactment, so that Rutherford would now face a 14‑year rather than 32‑year mandatory minimum on the same firearm c...
2026-01-181h 21
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaBost v. Illinois Bd. of ElectionsCase Summary:Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections arises from a 2022 lawsuit in which Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican presidential elector nominees challenged Illinois’ mail‑ballot rules, which require election officials to count mail ballots that are postmarked or certified by Election Day but received within 14 days afterward. They sued the Illinois State Board of Elections and its executive director, claiming that counting these later‑arriving ballots unlawfully extends the federal Election Day set by 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 and dilutes their votes or forces them to expend additional campaign resources, but both the dist...
2026-01-161h 07
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaCase v. Montana Case Summary:Case v. Montana involves William Trevor Case, whose ex-girlfriend called 911 after he told her on the phone that he was going to kill himself, mentioned writing a note, appeared to cock a gun, and then made a popping sound before the line went dead. Three officers responded for a welfare check, knew about Case’s history of alcohol abuse, mental-health problems, prior suicide threats, and a past apparent “suicide‑by‑cop” incident, saw through the windows empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad that looked like a suicide note, got no response to loud kn...
2026-01-1641 min
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesBerk v. Choy: Oral ArgumentCase Summary: The Case involves Harold R. Berk, a Florida resident who was visiting Delaware when he fell, severely injured his left ankle and foot, and then sought treatment at a local emergency room and rehabilitation facility. Berk alleges that Dr. Wilson C. Choy, Beebe Medical Center, and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital provided negligent medical care that worsened his injuries by delaying necessary surgery, causing extreme pain, and complicating his recovery, and he filed a diversity medical‑malpractice action in federal district court without attaching the expert “affidavit of merit” required by Delaware’s health‑care negligence statute. T...
2026-01-161h 03
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesVillarreal v. Texas: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:The Case arises from a Texas murder trial in which the judge ordered defendant David Asa Villarreal not to discuss his ongoing testimony with his lawyers during a 24‑hour overnight recess between direct and cross‑examination, and again during a later seven‑minute break in cross. Villarreal, the only defense witness and central to a self‑defense theory, was thus unable to confer with counsel about his testimony at a critical stage of trial; after he was convicted and sentenced to sixty years, the state appellate courts upheld the conviction and concluded that the no‑conferral...
2026-01-161h 17
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesChiles v. Salazar: Oral Argument Case Summary:The case involves Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, who wants to provide talk‑based counseling to minors aimed at helping them resist or change same‑sex attraction or gender‑transition goals, consistent with her religious beliefs and the minors’ stated objectives. Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibits licensed mental‑health professionals from performing conversion therapy on minors, so Chiles filed a pre‑enforcement suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials, including Patty Salazar, arguing that the law censors her counseling conversations, violates her Free Speech and Free Exercise rights, and chills her from...
2026-01-161h 24
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesBarrett v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary: The case involves Dwayne Barrett, who participated in a series of armed robberies of commercial establishments in New York City during which he and his accomplices used firearms to threaten employees and steal money and property. During one of these robberies, a victim was shot and killed, and federal prosecutors charged Barrett both under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) for using a firearm during a crime of violence and under § 924(j) for causing a death by using that firearm in relation to the same underlying robbery, resulting in multiple firearm-related counts arising from the sa...
2026-01-161h 01
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesBost v. IL Bd. of Elections: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Congressman Michael Bost, as a federal candidate, has Article III standing to challenge Illinois’ law allowing election officials to count mail ballots that are cast by Election Day but received up to fourteen days afterward.
2026-01-161h 43
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesUSPS v. Konan: Oral Argument Case Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception, which bars suits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail, also shields the Postal Service from liability when postal employees intentionally refuse to deliver a customer’s mail. The case comes from a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who alleges that USPS employees deliberately withheld mail to her and her tenants, with the Fifth Circuit holding that such intentional nondelivery is not a “loss” or “miscarriage” within the meaning of the postal exception, allowing her FTCA suit against USPS and...
2026-01-161h 06
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesBowe v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether federal prisoners seeking postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are not automatically barred by the “second or successive” claim-dismissal rule in § 2244(b)(1), a restriction that primarily governs state prisoners’ habeas applications under § 2254. The case arose from Michael Bowe’s attempt to challenge his mandatory consecutive 10‑year firearm sentence under § 924(c) in light of later decisions limiting what counts as a “crime of violence,” and the Court vacated and remanded after rejecting the government’s jurisdictional and procedural arguments that had allowed the Eleventh Circuit to block his new § 2255 motion.
2026-01-161h 30
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesEllingburg v. United States: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act constitutes criminal punishment rather than a purely civil debt. The case specifically questions whether Congress’s extension of the time period for collecting restitution, and applying that extension to offenses committed before the change, violates the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause by making the punishment for those earlier crimes more severe after the fact.
2026-01-161h 04
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesLouisiana v. Callais: Oral ArgumentCase Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which intentionally created a second majority‑Black district to remedy a prior Voting Rights Act violation, itself violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment by constituting an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
2026-01-162h 30
Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United StatesCase V. Montana: Oral ArgumentsCase Summary:After receiving a report from his ex-girlfriend that he was threatening suicide and may have shot himself, law enforcement officers in Montana responded to William Case’s home. The officers were aware of Case’s mental health and substance abuse history, as well as prior threats of suicide and confrontations with police. Upon arrival, they received further details about the phone call from Case’s ex-girlfriend, observed an empty handgun holster, a notepad resembling a suicide note, and noted Case’s lack of response to their attempts at contact. Believing Case might be injured or at risk...
2026-01-161h 15
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaBOWE v. UNITED STATES The Supreme Court Decision in BOWE v. UNITED STATES
2026-01-161h 49
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaTERENCE CLARK, DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. v. JEREMIAH ANTOINE SWEENEYSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES case in TERENCE CLARK, DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. v. JEREMIAH ANTOINE SWEENEY
2026-01-1605 min
Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of AmericaJEFFREY CLYDE PITTS v. MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECISION IN JEFFREY CLYDE PITTS v. MISSISSIPPI
2026-01-1611 min