⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

We hear the Ninth Circuit consider a dispute over federal homelessness funding in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, submits the joint grant application for the area's Continuum of Care, a regional network of homeless-service organizations. On June 11, 2026, HUD suspended LAHSA pending an investigation into suspected financial mismanagement and other grant violations. That blocked LAHSA from applying on the region's behalf; HUD proposed letting service providers apply directly instead. LAHSA sued, and the Continuum joined the case. On August 13, the district court temporarily restored LAHSA to its administrative roles and ordered HUD to execute already-approved grant agreements. At this September 22 hearing, the government will ask the Ninth Circuit to stay parts of that injunction—to pause those requirements during the appeal. It will contend the suspension protects federal funds and direct applications can keep services funded. LAHSA and the Continuum will contend the abrupt change puts housing and funding at risk. Their 'arbitrary and capricious' challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act asks whether HUD explained why immediate action was needed and considered the consequences for the region.

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, et al. v. Trump, et al. (No. 26-5367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.

Michael Sheridan challenges fees charged when he made payments on a car loan held by Ally Financial. Ally offered online and telephone payments through outside companies. Each transaction carried a fee of a few dollars. Sheridan sued on behalf of West Virginia borrowers, saying the fees violated the state's consumer-credit law. Ally says the processors were not its agents, and it received none of those fees. A federal district judge allowed a class of about fifteen thousand borrowers to proceed together. Ally appealed that class-certification order to the Fourth Circuit. The question here is not simply whether the fees were lawful. It is whether the borrowers' claims can be decided together, or require separate inquiries into what each borrower believed and relied on.

Michael Sheridan v. Ally Financial Incorporated (No. 25-2145) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

The Fifth Circuit rehears a dispute over prosecutors' records in Carlos Ayestas's death-penalty case. Ayestas was convicted of killing a woman during a robbery or burglary, and sentenced to death. Years later, his lawyers found a charging memo listing his non-citizen status as a reason to seek death. That line was crossed out; whether the memo shows discrimination is contested. He sought to add that claim to his federal habeas case, a challenge to his state conviction and sentence. The district court reopened the case and permitted discovery. A magistrate judge then ordered the Harris County District Attorney's Office to produce records from other capital cases. The office appealed without first seeking district-judge review of that order. The full court is rehearing the appeal. The questions are whether this appeal is proper and whether the claim can proceed as part of the original case. Meagan Scott represents the District Attorney's Office. She will ask the court to block discovery.

Ayestas v. Harris County (No. 25-70014) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears an insurance dispute after an employee at Shermar Oil's Indianapolis gas station shot a customer. The customer sued over the shooting, including claims that Shermar negligently hired, retained and supervised the employee. Grinnell Mutual, the insurer, asked a federal court to declare that it did not have to defend Shermar or pay damages under the policy. The court ruled for Grinnell, and Shermar appeals. The policy covers bodily injury caused by an occurrence—an accident—and applies separately to each insured. The dispute is whether the employee's intentional shooting also defeats coverage for Shermar, including claims about its own negligence. Vicarious liability means holding an employer responsible for an employee's conduct; negligent hiring or supervision instead concerns the employer's own conduct. Miranda Steele represents Shermar. She will argue that the employee's intent should not eliminate coverage for the business.

Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co v. Shermar Oil, LLC (No. 25-3188) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.

The Ninth Circuit hears the lawsuit brought by X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the European Climate Foundation. CCDH published reports about hate speech and misinformation on X, formerly Twitter. X says CCDH scraped public posts and used the foundation's login credentials to access a separate Brandwatch database. X alleges contract violations and unlawful computer access, claiming the reports drove advertisers away. The defendants dispute liability and say the suit punishes protected research and speech. A federal district court dismissed the case. It struck the state-law claims under California's anti-SLAPP law, an early-dismissal procedure for claims arising from protected speech or petitioning. It dismissed the federal computer claim for inadequate allegations of qualifying loss and found no personal jurisdiction over the Dutch foundation. Personal jurisdiction means the court's authority to require a defendant to answer the lawsuit. For the foundation, the dispute concerns its own suit-related United States contacts. X now seeks to revive the suit or amend its complaint. Pete Patterson represents X. He is with Cooper and Kirk. He will argue that the claims target improper data access, not protected speech.

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., et al. (No. 24-2643) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

The Eleventh Circuit hears Rafael Pons-Puig's challenge to the denial of an immigrant-worker petition. He sought classification based on extraordinary ability, but USCIS rejected his Form I-140. That petition is a step toward permanent residence, not a green card by itself. Pons-Puig sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction—the authority to review it—without deciding whether the agency was right on the merits. The dismissal turns on a law limiting review of decisions about adjustment of status, the process of becoming a permanent resident while in the United States. The petition here instead requested visa processing through a consulate. The appeal asks whether the review restriction also covers this earlier petition. The lawyers will also debate USCIS's final-merits assessment. After checking specific evidence categories, the agency weighs the record as a whole for sustained acclaim and standing at the top of the field. Is that an interpretation of existing requirements, or a new rule that required public notice and comment?

Rafael Pons-Puig, Appellant v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (No. 25-11236) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

The Fourth Circuit hears a second sentencing appeal by Myron Henderson. He pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine near a protected location in West Virginia and received a 110-month prison sentence. In the first appeal, his lawyer filed an Anders brief, reporting no meritorious grounds for appeal. That procedure still requires the court to review the record itself. The Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence. It found that the judge had not adequately addressed Henderson's request for leniency based on his difficult upbringing and supporting letters. Federal sentencing law, Section thirty-five fifty-three, requires consideration of both the offense and the defendant's history, as well as punishment, deterrence, and public protection. The judge must explain why that sentence is appropriate. The case returned to the district court for resentencing; this recording is from Henderson's appeal following that remand.

US v. Myron Henderson (No. 24-4536) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

Oregon transportation employee Staci Trees challenges union dues taken from her paychecks after she tried to resign. SEIU Local five oh three relied on a 2016 electronic membership card that limited when dues deductions could end. Trees says her signature was forged. She sued the union and state officials in federal court. The union then brought an unfair-labor-practice proceeding before Oregon's Employment Relations Board. The board dismissed the union's charges but found that Trees had signed the card. The federal judge treated that finding as binding and dismissed her claims against the union. That is issue preclusion: a decided issue may not be litigated again when the required conditions, including a full and fair opportunity to contest it, are met. Her constitutional claims invoke Section nineteen eighty-three, a federal law providing a remedy for rights violations committed under state authority. The appeal asks whether preclusion was properly applied and whether she can seek an order against future deductions, which have already stopped.

Trees v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU, et al. (No. 25-1155) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears a Chicago mother's challenge to Illinois's regulation of gun dealers. Shanice Mathews alleges that repeated exposure to neighborhood shootings has left her son, identified in court as D. W., with post-traumatic stress and other disabilities. She wants the state police to require dealers near Chicago to document precautions against straw purchases: buying a gun for someone else while falsely claiming it is for yourself. Her lawsuit invokes disability and race discrimination laws. The district judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, concluding that the police lacked statutory authority to impose the requested licensing rule. The appeal asks whether the police already have that authority and whether the proposed rule is likely to reduce the child's continuing harm. Standing requires a concrete, personal injury that is actual or imminent, linked to the defendant, and likely to be remedied by a court order.

Shanice Mathews v. State of Illinois (No. 25-2182) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

The American Water Works Association challenges EPA's lead-pipe replacement rule in the D.C. Circuit. Lead service lines connect water mains to homes and other buildings. As these pipes corrode, they can release lead into drinking water. Some portions belong to property owners rather than the water utility. EPA's 2024 rule requires replacement of lead service lines under a water system's control, with a ten-year replacement period starting in 2027 for most systems. The association supports removing lead pipes but challenges the rule's legal reach and deadline. It petitioned this court directly to set the rule aside. A key question concerns privately owned pipes: does permission to access them mean the utility controls them under the Safe Drinking Water Act? First, Corinne Snow of Vinson and Elkins will argue for the association that EPA wrongly treats access as control and imposes an unworkable deadline.

American Water Works Association v. EPA (No. 24-1376) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

Two cigar makers fight over the name Cohiba. General Cigar, an American company, and Cuba's state-owned Cubatabaco both sell cigars using that name. Cubatabaco's application to register its mark in the United States was blocked by General Cigar's existing registrations. It asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or TTAB, to cancel them. The Board agreed under an international trademark treaty because Cubatabaco had earlier protection in Cuba and General Cigar knew of its use. A federal district court upheld that result. General Cigar now appeals. It says the court's judgment violates the Cuban embargo and that earlier litigation prevents Cubatabaco from trying again on the same claim or issue. First, Stanley Panikowski will argue for General Cigar that the embargo bars this court-backed cancellation.

General Cigar Company, Inc. v. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco (No. 25-1645) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

Medical workers sue over shortages of masks and other personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. They accuse China, the Chinese Communist Party and PetroChina International America of hoarding supplies and restricting exports. The workers say this left them without adequate protection. They seek damages for infections and other harms they attribute to those shortages. These are allegations, not findings of liability. The district court allowed their antitrust claims, concerning restrictions on competition, to proceed against the Chinese defendants. Foreign states are generally immune from civil suits, with exceptions for certain commercial activities. PetroChina, a New Jersey company without sovereign immunity of its own, appeals that ruling. The first question is whether it can appeal an immunity ruling about someone else. The company will also argue that the challenged conduct was sovereign, not commercial.

Moriah Aharon, et al. v. PetroChina International (America), Inc. (No. 25-12241) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

Geno Saint Flerose appeals his federal convictions in the Eleventh Circuit. The case grew out of two shootings in Miami. A man was shot and killed; Saint Flerose also fired at a federal agent's vehicle. Prosecutors tied him to Everybody Eats, a street gang, and investigators also found other people's identifying information. A jury convicted him of gang-related murder, assaulting a federal officer, fraud and identity theft. A confession obtained through coercion by government agents cannot be used at trial. Courts examine the whole situation, including how police behaved and the suspect's vulnerability. Hector Flores represents Saint Flerose. Listen for the difference between choosing to talk and being coerced into confessing.

United States v. Geno St. Flerose, Appellant (No. 24-11540) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears Derek Lauritsen's appeal over a troubled repossession in Wisconsin. Hiawatha National Bank had a court order to take property securing a debt. Sheriff's officers and private contractors spent three days collecting cattle, farm equipment, and tools. Some property was damaged, and belongings stored there by other owners were taken too. The order was a writ of replevin: a direction to recover possession of personal property. The owners sued the officers and Polk County under Section nineteen eighty-three, the federal law used to seek relief for constitutional violations by people acting under state authority. The federal judge ruled for the county defendants by summary judgment, deciding those claims without a trial. The appeal asks whether the officers' involvement made the seizure unreasonable and whether the other owners had adequate procedures to recover their property.

Derek Lauritsen v. Hiawatha National Bank (No. 25-3320) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears an employment-discrimination appeal by Dr. Olachi Mezu-Ndubuisi. She was a University of Wisconsin physician who also treated newborns at Meriter Hospital. Her clinical work was restricted after medical leave and patient-safety reviews, with further assessments required before a return. She says those conditions were discriminatory and retaliatory, not justified by patient safety. She first sued in California, where the case was dismissed because that court lacked authority over the Wisconsin defendants. She filed again in Wisconsin twelve days later. The Wisconsin judge rejected her Title Seven and Americans with Disabilities Act claims as late. A right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission permits a court lawsuit, ordinarily within ninety days of receipt. Equitable tolling can suspend the deadline when someone diligently pursuing a claim makes a good-faith filing error or faces an extraordinary obstacle. The questions are when that clock started and whether that exception applies. Bruce Fein represents her and will argue that missing notices and the earlier California filing justify letting the case proceed.

Olachi Mezu-Ndubuisi v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, et al. (No. 25-3143) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears a dispute over Republican primary-ballot access in Brown County, Indiana. Richard Stanley and Tim Clark complained to the Indiana Republican Party about their local chairman. The party rejected the complaint and declared both men not Republicans in good standing for five years. They dispute the party's allegations and say the county election board cannot constitutionally enforce that decision against their candidacies. They sued the board before it decided whether to exclude them. The federal district court found the threatened exclusion concrete enough for judicial review, but dismissed their claims under an earlier decision called Hero. They now appeal. The judges will consider whether the lawsuit was premature and whether the party's right to choose its candidates permits the board to enforce this ban. Hero involved another Indiana candidate removed from a Republican primary ballot after a party ban.

Richard Stanley, Jr. v. Brown County Election Board (No. 26-1186) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 25, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Vanda Pharmaceuticals' challenge to an FDA decision about its sleep drug, Hetlioz. The drug, also called tasimelteon, was already approved for other sleep disorders. Vanda applied to add insomnia involving difficulty falling asleep and submitted clinical studies to support that use. FDA rejected the application and denied a hearing. Its objections include long-term safety and effectiveness, evidence about older patients, and patients' own reports of improved sleep. Vanda seeks an opportunity to contest that decision at a hearing. The court's central question is whether FDA could reject the application on the written record or whether a factual dispute required a hearing. A hearing would test the evidence, not automatically approve the drug. You will hear references to Vanda One, an earlier case about using the same drug for jet lag; this is a separate application for insomnia.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA (No. 25-1105) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.

The Fourth Circuit hears Bluestar Operations' challenge to a Drug Enforcement Administration rule concerning HHC, short for hexahydrocannabinol. Bluestar makes and sells cannabinoid products that it says are derived from hemp and protected by the 2018 Farm Bill. In May, DEA gave HHC its own listing and identification code among Schedule One controlled substances. The agency says HHC was already controlled; Bluestar says the rule threatens its business by treating its hemp-derived products as illegal. The company has asked this appeals court to review the agency's action directly, rather than appealing a trial-court judgment. One dispute is whether the Farm Bill's definition of hemp covers HHC produced by chemically processing hemp-derived material. The definition at issue includes hemp derivatives with no more than zero point three percent delta-nine THC by dry weight. Another is whether DEA could issue the rule without notice and comment: publishing a proposal and letting the public respond. The judges will also examine whether this particular rule, rather than an earlier agency position, caused an injury the court can remedy.

Bluestar Operations, LLC v. U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 26-1691) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 18, 2026.

The Fourth Circuit hears Chantilly Auto Body's appeal over unauthorized withdrawals from its account at Truist Bank. An impostor provided the repair business's account details to Paystand, a payment platform, triggering transfers from Chantilly's account into Paystand's account at a different bank. Chantilly sought reimbursement under Article Four A of Virginia's Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates certain electronic funds transfers. The district court granted Truist summary judgment, holding that these were debit transfers outside that statute's coverage. Summary judgment resolves a claim without a trial when no material facts are genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to win. The appeal turns on who legally initiated the payment: the impersonated customer, or the platform asking its own bank to pull the money. Chantilly will contend that an instruction sent through a payment platform can still qualify for the law's protections. Truist will argue that the platform initiated debit transfers, and that permission to withdraw money is different from instructing a bank to pay.

Chantilly Auto Body, Inc. v. Truist Bank (No. 25-1380) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

The Second Circuit reviews the dismissal of a proposed class action over allegedly overpriced glasses. Consumers accuse EssilorLuxottica of using acquisitions and exclusive licensing and distribution deals to suppress competition and raise eyewear prices. This appeal concerns indirect purchasers, who bought the company's eyewear through independent sellers instead of its own stores. The suits were consolidated in Minnesota and transferred to federal court in New York. The district judge dismissed their federal antitrust claims for failing to plausibly define a premium-eyewear market and declined to hear their state-law claims. Defining the relevant market means identifying which products consumers reasonably regard as substitutes, so a court can measure the company's competitive power. The consumers will argue that deciding their market's boundaries requires evidence, not dismissal on the complaint alone. The company will contend that those boundaries arbitrarily include its brands while excluding comparable competitors. CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act, can give federal courts authority to hear qualifying interstate class actions independently of any federal-law claim.

In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation (No. 25-2703) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

San Bernardino County asks the Ninth Circuit to overturn a civil-rights award of more than twenty-five million dollars to William Richards. Richards found his wife Pamela dead outside their home after returning from work. He was convicted of her murder in 1997, but California's Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2016 because of false evidence, and he was later found factually innocent. He then sued over the investigation and prosecution and won a civil jury verdict against the county. Two claims concern delayed coroner access that allegedly lost time-of-death evidence, and withheld laboratory notes suggesting another source for a hair beneath Pamela's fingernail. These Monell claims target the county's own policies and training failures, not merely an employee's mistake. Brady requires disclosure of material evidence favorable to a criminal defendant; Youngblood requires bad faith for a constitutional claim over failure to preserve potentially useful evidence. Which rule covers the missed time-of-death evidence is disputed. Rule Fifty allows a judge to reject a jury verdict when the evidence lacks a legally sufficient basis. The parties also dispute whether the county preserved its objections before the verdict. Farbod Moridani, of Miller Barondess, will seek reversal for the county. Ben Shaw, of McLane, Bednarski and Litt, will defend the verdict for Richards.

Richards v. County of San Bernardino, et al. (No. 25-7587) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

We hear Kentrell Flowers's sentencing appeal in the D.C. Circuit. In July twenty twenty-four, Flowers pointed a handgun at a deputy United States marshal during an attempted carjacking. Two marshals fired at him, injuring him. He later pleaded guilty to a federal firearm charge. A judge sentenced him to ten years in prison. The guideline recommendation was seven years, the statutory minimum, not a maximum. Judges must give specific reasons for a sentence above the guidelines. Plain-error review concerns legal errors not timely raised in the trial court. The appellant must establish an error, that it was clear or obvious, and that it affected substantial rights, usually meaning it affected the outcome. Even then, the appellate court has discretion to correct the error only if it seriously harms the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

USA v. Kentrell Flowers (No. 25-3060) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

The Tenth Circuit hears Laura Neumann's challenge to a ruling for the organizers of an off-road Jeep event. In twenty nineteen, Neumann was a passenger on a trail ride near Moab, Utah. She stepped out to watch another driver climb a boulder, and his Jeep struck her, causing serious injuries. She sued Red Rock Four-Wheelers, alleging that its guides directed the Jeep toward bystanders and failed to move them to safety. Before the ride, she had signed a liability waiver: an agreement giving up certain legal claims. A federal judge ruled for Red Rock without a trial, relying on the waiver, the activity's inherent risks, and insufficient evidence of gross negligence. Gross negligence means a much more serious degree of carelessness than an ordinary mistake. The appeal asks whether those reasons justify ending her case.

Neumann v. Red Rock 4 Wheelers, et al. (No. 25-4138) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

The Fifth Circuit hears two appeals over drag performances at Texas A&M universities. At College Station, the Queer Empowerment Council had booked a campus theater for its annual drag show. In February twenty twenty-five, the system's Board of Regents restricted drag shows at campus event venues, and the university canceled the show. The student group sued. A district judge blocked the ban, allowing the planned performance to proceed, and university officials appealed. A related appeal concerns a drag show blocked by West Texas A&M's president. The universities say they are regulating discriminatory conduct; the students say officials are censoring their messages. A central question is whether campus venues are limited public forums: government spaces set aside for selected groups or purposes, where restrictions must be reasonable and must not disfavor a speaker's viewpoint. We hear the two cases together before a larger bench of circuit judges, rather than a usual three-judge panel, on September twenty-third, twenty twenty-six.

Texas A&M Queer Empower v. Mahomes (No. 25-20108) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.

Ronald Hardman challenges the denial of an immigration petition filed by his current wife. Officials found that his earlier marriage was arranged for immigration benefits, pointing to evidence that the spouses lived apart and Hardman lived with another woman. Hardman disputes the fraud finding and says the living arrangements have innocent explanations. After the first marriage ended, he remarried, but the earlier fraud finding became the basis for denying his new wife's petition. A federal district court upheld the denial and declined to consider additional declarations outside the agency record. The appeal concerns the agency's explanation for its decisions and whether the court should consider that additional evidence. We hear the Seventh Circuit's oral argument on October first, twenty twenty-six.

Ronald Hardman v. Todd W. Blanche (No. 25-2570) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

Adel Daoud challenges convictions and a twenty-seven-year prison sentence in three linked criminal cases. In 2012, he tried to detonate what he believed was a car bomb outside a downtown Chicago bar. The device was inert and supplied by an undercover FBI agent. While jailed, Daoud solicited that agent's murder and later violently attacked another inmate. During pretrial proceedings, he was found incompetent to stand trial, then regained competence after treatment. In 2018, he entered an Alford plea: a guilty plea made while maintaining innocence. His original sixteen-year sentence was overturned after the government appealed, and he was resentenced to twenty-seven years. At this hearing, the court will consider his request to withdraw the plea, his decision to represent himself at resentencing, and his challenge to the sentence. The discussion focuses on his mental health, the risks of proceeding without a lawyer, and how much weight mitigating circumstances should receive. We hear the Seventh Circuit's oral argument on September thirtieth, twenty twenty-six.

United States v. Adel Daoud (No. 24-2367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

Idaho physician Stacy Seyb challenges abortion restrictions that he says prevent needed care for high-risk pregnancies. One patient with kidney failure faced losing her place on the transplant list if she remained pregnant. Idaho law generally criminalizes abortion, with a medical exception to prevent the patient's death that excludes danger from self-harm. Seyb sued to protect care for serious health risks as well. After a trial, the district court barred enforcement in cases involving serious, lasting harm to the patient's health, or death from self-harm. It later limited that protection to Seyb himself while the case is appealed. At this September twenty-second hearing, the state seeks a stay—a temporary pause in that protection. Seyb seeks to restore the broader injunction. Mathew Hoffmann will argue for Idaho's Attorney General and the Ada County prosecutor that Dobbs leaves these policy choices to elected lawmakers. The court must consider the asserted constitutional right, medical evidence, and who an injunction can protect. This hearing concerns interim relief, not a final appellate ruling.

Seyb v. Labrador, et al. (No. 26-5360) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. FERC. Panhandle transports natural gas for customers called shippers. Its charges included tax costs collected before the matching taxes were due—accumulated deferred income taxes, or ADIT. The 2017 federal tax law reduced corporate taxes, leaving part of those balances unnecessary. FERC investigated Panhandle's rates. In 2019, the pipeline became part of a master limited partnership and proposed rates without an income-tax allowance. It also moved the old tax balances into retained earnings. After an administrative hearing, FERC required the tax-cut surplus to flow back to customers through future rates and excluded deferred-tax balances from the equity used to calculate Panhandle's return. Panhandle challenges those decisions here. It also disputes the return allowed on construction financing and how refunds should be calculated for customers who paid its proposed rates during the proceedings. Section four of the Natural Gas Act allows refunds, with interest, of unjustified rate increases that take effect during agency review. The refund dispute is whether to compare individual charges or the total bill for a shipment.

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co v. FERC (No. 20-1419) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 24, 2026.

Photographer Jeffrey Sedlik challenges a tattoo based on his portrait of Miles Davis making a shushing gesture. Kat Von D used the photograph to make a tattoo for a client and posted images of the work on social media. Sedlik sued her and High Voltage Tattoo for copyright infringement. The jury found the tattoo and several related works were not substantially similar to the photograph, and found separate process images showing the photograph were fair use. The trial judge refused to overturn that verdict. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed, but its opinion was later vacated for rehearing en banc—before a larger panel. William Patry will ask the Ninth Circuit to replace its similarity test and overturn the verdict. Allen Grodsky will defend the verdict for Von Drachenberg and her tattoo shop. Listen for two terms: extrinsic similarity compares protected expressive details; intrinsic similarity asks how the works look to an ordinary observer, in overall concept and feel.

Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. (No. 24-3367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

Fernando Alban's family seeks to collect a judgment arising from his kidnapping and killing. They won against Nicolas Maduro and others, and now seek the frozen assets of the Venezuelan company PDVSA. PDVSA was not a defendant in the original action and wants the asset-seizure orders undone. The district judge accepted the family's jurisdiction theory, but ordered a fact-finding hearing on notice and the company's relationship to the Maduro regime. PDVSA appealed that immunity ruling. The rival statutes are the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. Section 201 of TRIA permits certain terrorism judgments to be collected from blocked assets of a terrorist party or its agencies and instrumentalities. Jurisdictional immunity protects a foreign state from court proceedings; execution immunity protects property from seizure. The company's lawyer will argue that TRIA overcomes only the latter and that an independent basis for jurisdiction is still needed. The family will argue that TRIA itself provides that basis.

Meudy Osio, et al. v. PDVSA (No. 25-12365) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

Trent Vanderzee challenges medical charges after his daughter received a replacement cochlear implant at the University of Chicago Medical Center. He alleges that the hospital overbilled both him and his health insurer. His lawsuit accuses the hospital of fraudulent billing. The hospital seeks to send the case to binding arbitration, a private decision process outside court, under its facility contract with the insurer. Vanderzee did not sign that contract. The district judge refused to compel arbitration, and the hospital appealed. Today's argument concerns who must arbitrate, not whether the medical bill itself was fraudulent. One hospital theory is third-party-beneficiary status: a person can have rights under a contract intended for their direct benefit, even without being a party. Daniel Campbell will represent the hospital and argue that the contract's patient-billing protections give Vanderzee direct benefits that also bind him to arbitration.

Trent Vanderzee v. University of Chicago Medical Center (No. 25-2962) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

The Pride Center of Terre Haute, an Indiana nonprofit supporting the LGBTQ community, challenges the loss of student workers funded through Indiana State University. Students worked at the Center while the university paid their wages through work-study programs. The Center required applicants to be affirming of the LGBTQ community and culturally responsive. In August 2025, the university ended the partnership, citing federal anti-discrimination guidance and concern about the hiring criteria. The Center sued two university officials and sought a temporary court order restoring the funding. The district judge denied that request, finding that the preliminary record did not show likely discrimination against the Center's viewpoint. That was not a final ruling on the lawsuit. This appeal asks whether ending the partnership unlawfully punished the Center's views and choice of staff, or was a permissible funding decision. Kenneth Falk will represent the Center and contend that the university cannot condition support on abandoning its message.

Pride Center of Terre Haute v. ISU Officials (No. 26-1144) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Jorge Lujan v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In February 2026, the agency issued a rule narrowing eligibility for non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses, a license category used by some immigrants working here. For foreign-domiciled applicants, work permits, known as EADs, no longer suffice; applicants must hold one of three specified visa types. That excludes many work-authorized people, including asylum seekers and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. For existing drivers, losing the ability to renew threatens their livelihoods driving trucks or buses. Two drivers and two unions petitioned this court to set the rule aside, alongside a related challenge by King County, Washington. The court declined to pause the rule while the cases proceeded. The challengers say the restrictions lack a reasoned safety basis and exceed the agency's authority. The government says they address inaccessible foreign driving records and licensing-document errors.

Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (No. 26-1032) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 15, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Lynne Russell v. District of Columbia. The plaintiffs want to carry their pistols in holsters inside purses, sling bags, or other bags rather than attached to their bodies. D.C. interprets its concealed-carry rule to require a pistol secured in a holster attached to the carrier's body. The plaintiffs sued, saying the on-body requirement violates their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. They do not object to using holsters; they object to where those holsters must be carried. The district court upheld the rule, and they appealed. The dispute is whether historical restrictions on carrying weapons justify this modern on-body requirement.

Lynne Russell v. DC (No. 25-7163) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 25, 2026.

The Fourth Circuit hears B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board. B.R. alleges that, as a middle-school student, she was sexually harassed and assaulted by other students, and that school officials failed to respond adequately to her reports. She sued the School Board under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds. She also brought claims against individual school employees. A jury found for the School Board in 2024, and B.R. now challenges that result on appeal. Her position is that legal errors at trial undermined the verdict. This is a civil lawsuit about the school's responsibilities, not a criminal prosecution of the other students.

B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board (No. 25-1836) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Richard Hornsby's challenge to his firing from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Hornsby was its chief operating officer. After accusations that he had threatened an agency official, he faced criminal charges and was acquitted. The agency then fired him, citing management misconduct, including intimidation of staff attorneys and pressure on a subordinate to seek him a better performance rating. Hornsby says the dismissal was retaliation for participating in employment-discrimination proceedings. An administrative judge overturned the firing but rejected retaliation. The agency appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which restored the firing. Hornsby did not challenge the retaliation ruling before the full Board. A federal district judge later ruled that he had abandoned that claim and upheld the firing and denial of interim relief. This appeal asks whether he may still pursue retaliation in court, whether the firing should stand, and whether he should receive interim relief for the time the agency's administrative appeal was pending. Richard Swick will argue for Hornsby, seeking to reverse those rulings.

Richard Hornsby v. FHFA (No. 25-5351) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.

The Fourth Circuit hears a whistleblower suit over therapy billing at Anchorage, a Maryland nursing facility. Two therapy workers accuse the facility and its current and former owners of using falsified records to bill Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary treatment. They sued under the False Claims Act, which lets private plaintiffs pursue fraud claims for the government. Their lawsuit went from Maryland to Pennsylvania and back. The Pennsylvania judge let it proceed, but the Maryland judge later dismissed it because an earlier whistleblower suit alleged a similar therapy-billing scheme. The first-to-file rule bars a later, related private suit while the earlier one is pending. This appeal asks whether the two suits are sufficiently related and whether the Pennsylvania ruling should govern. The lawyers also dispute whether this rule is jurisdictional—whether it limits the court's power to hear the case. Evan Bianchi will argue for the whistleblowers, seeking to restore their lawsuit.

United States ex rel. William Coleman v. Anchorage SNF, LLC (No. 25-2283) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit considers a deportation dispute that became a fight over enforcing court orders. In March 2025, the government flew Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg ordered removals halted and told government lawyers the men must be brought back. They were transferred to Salvadoran custody; the government says the flights had already left U.S. territory and its actions complied with the written order. The Supreme Court later lifted the restraining orders, requiring challenges to these removals to be filed where the detainees were held. Boasberg’s separate inquiry asks whether officials willfully violated his order. Criminal contempt punishes disobedience rather than compelling future compliance. Now a larger panel, sitting en banc, hears the government’s request for mandamus: an extraordinary order stopping the lower court’s proceedings. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate will argue that further inquiry is unauthorized and any contempt prosecution would be futile.

In re: Donald J. Trump, et al. (No. 25-5452) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

Ivan Stark asks the Seventh Circuit for prison-program credits. He says he worked as an orderly and distributed meals while awaiting transfer to his designated prison, but the Bureau of Prisons denied credits for that period. Under the First Step Act, eligible prisoners can earn time credits through qualifying programs. Stark challenged the calculation, and the district court denied his petition. He has since left prison and is under court-ordered supervision. He wants additional credits to shorten that supervision; the government says credits can move its start earlier, but cannot shorten the term. The judges also ask whether meaningful relief remains, the issue called mootness. Becca Steinberg will argue for Stark and seek credit against his remaining supervision.

Ivan Stark, Jr. v. Brenton Bragan (No. 25-2609) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 24, 2026.

We hear the Eleventh Circuit consider Alex El Bachiri's debt-collection lawsuit. He says MD Now billed him for medical services he never received, and Medicredit sent letters demanding payment. He disputed the debt and sued the clinic and collector under debt-collection laws, alleging lost time and emotional distress. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing. Here, standing turns on whether he has alleged a real, personal injury. For intangible harms, courts look for close comparisons with injuries traditionally recognized in lawsuits. The appeal asks whether the distress and time spent responding to allegedly wrongful collection letters supply that injury, or amount to self-imposed harm. This argument concerns access to federal court, not whether the companies ultimately violated debt-collection law.

Alex El Bachiri v. Medicredit, Inc., et al. (No. 25-10356) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

We hear the Eleventh Circuit consider a teenager's effort to resume contact with his mother. During his parents' divorce, a Florida court gave his father temporary sole custody and barred contact with his mother. B.M.S. sued the judge in federal court, claiming the ban violates his First Amendment right to receive information. He requested a declaration of his rights. The federal court dismissed his suit; this recording is his appeal. Younger abstention is a narrow doctrine requiring federal courts to stay out of certain ongoing state proceedings. The immediate question is whether his federal suit can proceed, rather than deciding which parent should have custody.

B.M.S. v. Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (No. 25-12945) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

The D.C. Circuit hears Mercuria Energy Group Limited's effort to enforce an arbitration award against Poland. Poland fined Mercuria's fuel-trading subsidiary for allegedly failing to maintain required fuel stocks. Polish courts overturned the fine. Poland refunded the penalty, but a dispute over interest remained. Mercuria took that dispute to arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty and won an award. Sweden was the legal seat; lex arbitri means the law governing the arbitration process. A Swedish court then invalidated the award under European Union rules restricting arbitration between EU states and investors from other EU states. An American district judge refused to enforce it. Mercuria will contend that honoring the annulment would deny basic justice. Poland will defend the Swedish ruling and the narrow limits on enforcing an annulled award.

Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland (No. 25-7152) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

The Tenth Circuit hears Tracey Radick's challenge to a search of her home. Police found suspected methamphetamine in a man's car. He said he'd bought it from Radick, described her property, and identified her photograph. Officers used his account to obtain a search warrant. The search led to federal drug and firearm charges. A district judge refused to exclude the evidence, and Radick now appeals her conviction. She will contend that the affidavit—the officer's sworn statement supporting the warrant—didn't establish the informant's reliability or corroborate the alleged drug sale. The government will defend both the warrant and the good-faith exception, which can permit evidence from a flawed warrant when officers reasonably relied on the judge's authorization.

United States v. Radick (No. 25-7050) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit hears a United Airlines pilot's challenge to the handling of his religious exemption from its COVID vaccination requirement. John Hassett received the exemption, but United would not let unvaccinated pilots fly. He spent several months on unpaid leave before returning to work. He sued under Title Seven, alleging failure to accommodate his religion and retaliation. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim and later ruled for United without a trial on accommodation. It found that his proposed alternatives would impose an undue hardship on the airline. Hassett will argue that masking and testing could have let him keep flying, and that United's safety concerns lacked proof of substantial costs. United will defend its assessment of cockpit safety and operational risks.

John Hassett v. United Airlines, Inc. (No. 25-3253) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

The Eleventh Circuit hears a challenge to the removal of And Tango Makes Three from Escambia County school libraries. The picture book tells the true story of two male penguins raising a chick. Its authors, Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, and an elementary-school student sued the school board. They say it removed the book because of its positive portrayal of same-sex parenting. The district court ruled for the board without a trial, concluding that selecting school-library books did not infringe the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs appeal. Corey Stoughton, of Selendy Gay, will argue for the authors and student that this viewpoint-based removal violated the First Amendment. The board will defend its authority to choose the library collection.

Peter Parnell, et al. v. School Board of Escambia County, Florida (No. 25-13485) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims hears Mikayla Rose Devins's appeal over education benefits. Her father died from a service-connected disability, and her mother is permanently and totally disabled. Both parents' military service made her eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance, or DEA. While attending college, she received benefits based on both parents at the same time. VA paid twice the monthly amount, but treated those payments as using one combined thirty-six-month allowance. After VA said her benefits were exhausted, the Board of Veterans' Appeals rejected her request for more. She appeals that ruling. She will argue each parent provides a separate thirty-six-month entitlement. The Secretary will defend a cap for each student, however many parents qualify.

Mikayla Rose Devins v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 25-2179) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued September 30, 2026.

The Eleventh Circuit hears a challenge to rules for PACE home-improvement financing. Homeowners use it to pay for energy-saving or storm-protection improvements, then repay through their property-tax bills. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a rule applying federal consumer-credit protections to those transactions. BRIDGE, an industry association, sued to stop the rule. A Florida district judge denied its request for preliminary relief, and BRIDGE appealed. We hear the consolidated appeals. BRIDGE contends the Bureau went beyond Congress's instructions and improperly regulated state tax programs. The Bureau says voluntary home-improvement financing is consumer credit within its authority. The lawyers also dispute the research used to justify the rule.

BRIDGE v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (No. 25-14109) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.

Travel nurses sued Aya Healthcare, alleging that it cut their pay rates in the middle of their contracts. They also claim Aya miscalculated their overtime pay. Aya wants individual arbitration, a private process instead of a court case. Earlier arbitrations produced conflicting decisions about whether the agreements were enforceable. The Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling that used two nurses' arbitration victories to block arbitration for other employees. On remand, the district judge held the arbitration motion while preparing notice to additional potential plaintiffs. Aya now asks the Ninth Circuit to require an arbitration ruling first. The argument concerns the order of those steps and the limits on appellate intervention.

O'Dell, et al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (No. 26-3776) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 1, 2026.

A hailstorm damaged the roof of a building leased to Staples. The landlord, Ada Real Estate Joint Venture, wanted Staples to pay for the repairs because the lease required Staples to carry property insurance. The roof replacement cost about a hundred and sixteen thousand dollars, below the policy's two hundred and fifty thousand dollar deductible. That meant no insurance payout would be available for this loss. The landlord sued, claiming Staples breached the lease by failing to file an insurance claim. The district court ruled for Staples, and the landlord appealed to the Tenth Circuit. The lawyers will debate whether the tenant's insurance duty shifts this bill from the landlord, and whether the court has a final judgment it can review.

Ada Real Estate Joint Venture v. Staples the Office SuperStore East, et al. (No. 25-7074) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026.

Derrel Thomas asks the Eleventh Circuit to revive his unlawful-entry claim. His lawsuit describes a dispute involving his wife and a locksmith at his home. Thomas says he asked sheriff's deputies to leave and shut himself in the garage, but they entered the house without a warrant and arrested him for battery. He then sued over the entry. The district court dismissed his constitutional claims, relying on his later battery conviction to establish probable cause for the arrest. The central question is whether grounds to arrest him also justified entering his home. Exigent circumstances are urgent conditions that can justify entering without a warrant. Before reaching the merits, the judges must decide whether he appealed too soon, while he could still amend his remaining trespass claims.

Derrel Thomas v. Matthew Beebe, et al. (No. 24-12604) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026.