Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Jerid Hinz’s 24-month imprisonment sentence for violating conditions of his supervised release but struck a specific condition requiring him to register with local law enforcement and the state attorney general upon his release from confinement. The court held that while the district court did not rely on inaccurate information regarding gun-related allegations or unproven violent conduct when imposing the prison term, it exceeded its statutory authority by attaching a post-release registration requirement to a sentence that included no subsequent term of supervised release. Under Seventh Circuit precedent, a district court lacks the power to impose restrictions on a defendant effective after they complete their prison term unless those restrictions are part of a supervised release order. Because Hinz was sentenced to imprisonment without any follow-up supervision, the registration condition was unauthorized and is therefore removed from the judgment, which is affirmed as modified.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Peruvian nationals seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a substantial evidence standard to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ factual findings and reviewed questions of law de novo. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the Petitioners failed to establish that the Peruvian government was unable or unwilling to protect them from private individuals, noting that police responded to reports of abuse and eventually arrested the former partner for unrelated crimes. Additionally, the court found no legal error in the denial of CAT relief, ruling that general ineffectiveness in investigating crime or lax enforcement of domestic violence laws does not constitute government acquiescence required under the statute. As a result, the applications for all forms of relief were denied, and the stay of removal remains in place only until the mandate issues.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed upon Timothy Cota Jr.’s second revocation of supervised release. The court applied a plain-error standard of review to Cota’s claim that the district court erred by relying on facts from two disputed violation reports when varying upward, noting that even assuming Cota did not waive his objections, he failed to meet the “formidable” burden required for such relief. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in considering Cota’s relationship with his probation officer because it explicitly relied on a government argument citing a report to which Cota had not objected. Furthermore, the court found no clear or obvious error regarding the reference to an Arkansas arrest, as the Guidelines range was calculated solely based on stipulated violations and the mention of the arrest served only as a contextual warning against future violations rather than a basis for the sentence. Additionally, Cota failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that his sentence would have been lighter absent any alleged procedural error. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

Docket: 2:23-cv-01498-

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the University of Washington (UW) in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by former employees terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The panel held that UW is an “arm of the state” and therefore not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, rendering it immune from liability for the alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The court applied a refined three-factor test for determining whether an entity is an arm of the state, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.* (2026) clarified but did not overrule the Ninth Circuit’s prior en banc test from *Kohn v. State Bar of California*. Under this rebalanced standard, the factors are weighted as follows: (1) whether the state intended to create a legally independent entity, shown by the entity’s form and treatment under state law (bearing the most weight); (2) whether the state is formally liable for the entity’s debts or judgments; and (3) the degree of control the state exercises over the entity (bearing the least weight). Applying this test, the court found that Washington State did not intend to create a legally independent entity because UW lacks corporate form under current state law, is statutorily classified as a state agency subject to various state obligations, and was created by statute rather than charter. The second factor regarding formal liability was deemed neutral, as while UW maintains a self-insurance fund, the state has not disclaimed all formal liability for its debts. The third factor weighed slightly in favor of state arm status due to significant state oversight, though the court noted this factor is generally less probative. Consequently, because UW is an arm of the state, it cannot be sued under § 1983. The practical consequence is that the plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims against the University of Washington are dismissed with prejudice on the merits of immunity, and the judgment in favor of the university is affirmed. The panel noted that claims against individual defendants were addressed in a separate memorandum disposition.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

Docket: 4:24-cr-00320-HSG-1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Terrance Hunter’s convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and the imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. Regarding the robbery conviction, the court held that the government satisfied the jurisdictional element of the Hobbs Act by presenting sufficient evidence of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce, specifically through security footage of the theft and testimony regarding economic harm to the retailer and potential customer alienation; the court rejected Hunter’s argument that the shoes might be inauthentic, noting he acknowledged possessing Nike-branded items taken from the store. On the sentencing issue, the court applied a de novo standard to the legal characterization of obstruction under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings, concluding that Hunter’s continued insistence on his innocence despite being shown video evidence of him shoving an officer demonstrated a willful intent to obstruct justice rather than a sincere but inaccurate recollection. Additionally, the court held that Hunter waived any challenge to the revocation of his supervised release by failing to argue the issue specifically and distinctly in his opening brief. The practical consequence is that Hunter’s judgment and sentence remain in full force.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Eric Lamont Thomas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that the state trial court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court regarding three claims: ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the failure to advise on appellate waiver rights, ineffective assistance of counsel concerning sentencing exposure, and a due process claim regarding lack of understanding of sentencing exposure. The court applied the highly deferential standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which permits relief only if the state court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court determined that AEDPA deference applied because the state trial court’s reasoned opinion addressed the claims by name and rejected them on the merits, even though subsequent state appellate courts issued summary denials without reasoning. Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court applied the two-prong *Strickland v. Washington* standard but found that Thomas failed to identify any Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing that defense counsel must advise a defendant about the nuances of an appellate waiver or specific sentencing guidelines ranges as a constitutional requirement. The court noted that while advice on collateral consequences is generally not required under *Chaidez*, and deportation risks are a unique exception under *Padilla v. Kentucky*, no such rule exists for appellate waivers or sentencing exposure details. Furthermore, regarding the due process claim, the court found that clearly established law from *Brady v. United States* and *Boykin v. Alabama* requires only that a defendant be aware of the statutory maximum penalty to enter a knowing and voluntary plea, not necessarily the full sentencing guidelines range. Because fairminded jurists could disagree with the state court’s conclusions on these points, relief was precluded under AEDPA. As a practical consequence, Thomas’s federal habeas petition remains denied, and his conviction and sentence stand without further federal relief.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

Docket: 3:17-cv-00018-SLG

The ninth-circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s order granting reconsideration of a prior judgment enforcing SCF’s rights. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating the order requiring ANTHC to produce 15 specific documents, finding that SCF’s motion properly identified those documents and that ANTHC had ample opportunity to contest arguments regarding in camera review raised in reply briefs. Additionally, the court ruled that the dispute over the documents was not moot because effective relief remained available despite ANTHC’s offer of temporary access. Conversely, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to uphold the striking of specific sections of ANTHC’s disclosure policy (§§ 5.4.1.1 and 5.4.1.7), concluding that the district court reasonably interpreted the policy in light of ANTHC’s statutory obligations to disclose information necessary for SCF’s governance rights. The court declined to address whether the reconsideration order vacated prospective procedural provisions, directing the parties to raise that issue with the district court first.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

Docket: 4:24-cr-00320-HSG-1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Hunter’s motion for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and its imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. Regarding the Hobbs Act robbery conviction, the court held that the government satisfied the jurisdictional element by presenting sufficient evidence of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce, including security footage of the theft and testimony regarding economic harm to the retailer and potential customer alienation; the court rejected Hunter’s argument that the shoes were inauthentic as speculative. On the obstruction of justice issue under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, the court applied clear error review to factual findings and de novo review to the legal characterization of conduct, concluding that Hunter lacked a sincere but inaccurate recollection because he continued to deny shoving an officer despite being shown video evidence of the act. Additionally, the court held that Hunter waived any challenge to the revocation of his supervised release by failing to argue the issue specifically and distinctly in his opening brief. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of both qualified immunity and statutory immunity to City Manager Sheryl Long in a civil rights action brought by former Fire Chief Michael Washington. The court held that Long is not entitled to qualified immunity for violating Washington’s procedural due process rights because it was clearly established law that a public employee with “for-cause” removal protection under the Cincinnati City Charter is entitled to a pre-termination hearing, and the memorandum Washington signed did not contain “clear and unmistakable language” waiving those constitutional rights. The court further affirmed the denial of statutory immunity for the defamation claim, ruling that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Washington, a reasonable jury could find that Long acted with malice or bad faith under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) by knowingly making false statements about his termination while disregarding her legal department’s advice and the Charter’s requirements. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-13

Docket: 2:24-cv-10492-SB-JPR

The ninth-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the district court’s order, which compelled arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice while reserving jurisdiction to handle motions regarding future arbitration awards, did not constitute a “final decision” appealable under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act. Although the order was styled as a dismissal, the district court explicitly stated it would be “functionally indistinguishable from a stay” and intended to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate potential motions to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award. Because the order was ambiguous regarding whether it represented the court’s final act in the matter, the appellate court determined it lacked the authority to review the dismissal. Consequently, the appeal is terminated, and the parties must await a final disposition of the underlying dispute or a subsequent appealable order from the district court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.