Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Ninth Circuit denied Cruz Torres-Casas’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The court held that an applicant’s eligibility for this relief must be assessed on a continuing basis, meaning a child who turns 21 during the pendency of an appeal to the BIA ceases to be a “qualifying relative” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) and can no longer support the parent’s claim. The court reasoned that because the statute requires predicting whether removal would cause hardship, the adjudicator must rely on facts existing at the time the agency issues its final decision; if an appeal is taken, the BIA is the final adjudicator and must consider the relative’s status at that later date. Additionally, the panel found that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Torres failed to establish that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his remaining qualifying relatives, noting that the record did not compel a contrary conclusion regarding their financial stability, ability to maintain relationships, or access to medical care. The court further held it lacked jurisdiction to review the factual findings underlying the hardship determination. As a result, the petition is denied, leaving the BIA’s order affirming the denial of cancellation of removal in effect.

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: 2026-07-22

Docket: 3:24-cv-00075-JD

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Christopher Lovelady’s civil rights and tort claims against U.S. Customs and Border Protection with prejudice. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing Lovelady’s Fourth Amendment claim because he failed to plausibly allege standing for declaratory or injunctive relief; specifically, he could not demonstrate a concrete injury likely to recur given his own allegations that no standard policy governed officer engagement and that the incident involved a non-routine process. Regarding claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act for false imprisonment, assault, and battery, the court affirmed dismissal because Lovelady failed to allege unlawful detention or unreasonable force; his temporary detention was reasonably related to a routine search following his failure to answer screening questions, and the use of handcuffs (which were mentioned but not applied) was not deemed unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also upheld the dismissal of his claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794), ruling that he did not plausibly allege he was denied program benefits solely by reason of his disability. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Lovelady’s motions to reassign and reconsider, finding no abuse of discretion as the judge’s conduct did not raise a reasonable question of impartiality. Consequently, the judgment of dismissal stands, and no further amendment to the complaint is permitted.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Federal Circuit dismissed the petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision sustaining Heather Quillet’s removal from federal service. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the arbitrator’s ruling because Quillet was appointed as a VA healthcare professional under 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1). Citing *Bonner v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs. Pittsburgh Healthcare Sys.*, the court applied the established rule that the jurisdictional grant in 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f), which allows judicial review of certain arbitration decisions, does not extend to employees hired under § 7401(1). Consequently, because the court determined it has no authority to consider the case, the petition was dismissed without reaching the merits of the drug-free workplace policy violation or the arbitration proceedings.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dissolving a preliminary injunction against defendant Zhouty and denying injunctive relief against newly added defendants in a design patent infringement case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the plaintiff, Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim following the issuance of a later-issued U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,104 covering the accused foldable fan design. The court applied the standard for preliminary injunctions under Seventh Circuit law, which requires a plaintiff to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The Federal Circuit clarified that while the test for obviousness differs from infringement, the test for anticipation is identical to the test for design patent infringement (the ordinary observer test). Because the district court correctly noted that the issuance of the later ‘104 patent creates a presumption that its claimed design is novel and not anticipated by the plaintiff’s earlier ‘982 patent, the district court was within its discretion to consider this as evidence suggesting an ordinary observer would not view the accused products as substantially similar to the patented design. The court further rejected the appellant’s argument that collateral estoppel barred the district court from reconsidering the relevance of the new patent, noting that collateral estoppel does not prevent a trial judge from revisiting non-final decisions within an ongoing proceeding. The practical consequence is that the preliminary injunction against Zhouty remains dissolved and no temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was issued against the new defendants, allowing them to continue selling the accused products pending further proceedings on the merits of the infringement claim.

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: 2026-07-22

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Joshua Matthew Preston’s petition for review of a Securities and Exchange Commission order approving FINRA Rule 3270 as untimely. Under 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1), a person aggrieved by a final SEC order must file a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals within sixty days after the entry of that order. The Commission entered the underlying order on August 23, 2010, while Preston filed his petition in July 2025, nearly fifteen years later. Although Preston argued that the statute of limitations should be calculated based on when he allegedly suffered injury rather than the date the rule was promulgated, the court rejected this interpretation as contrary to the statutory text. Furthermore, even assuming the timeliness period began when Preston alleged injury in October 2024, his petition filed in July 2025 still exceeded the sixty-day deadline. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without reaching the merits of the challenge, and no further action is pending before this court regarding the underlying SEC order.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the agreement of both parties. As a result of this dismissal, each side is ordered to bear its own costs, and the mandate was issued on July 22, 2026.

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: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Defendant Randall Williams regarding Plaintiff Brian Eugene Hux’s Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure. The court held that a police officer lacks reasonable suspicion to conduct a *Terry* stop when an individual’s physical characteristics, such as age and height, significantly differ from the suspect description provided in a “be on the lookout” call, rendering the initial detention unreasonable. Furthermore, the court ruled that an individual’s flight does not supply reasonable suspicion if the flight is provoked by the officer’s own aggressive conduct, such as running toward the individual with a weapon while shouting commands, rather than being unprovoked. The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s outstanding arrest warrant deprived him of a cognizable liberty interest or standing, clarifying that Fourth Amendment protections apply regardless of whether an individual is suspected of a crime or has warrants pending. Because the right to be free from unreasonable seizures was clearly established at the time of the incident and the Defendant’s conduct violated that right without justification under the totality of the circumstances, qualified immunity did not apply. Consequently, the case proceeds against Williams on the Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim, while the excessive force and state law claims previously dismissed by the district court remain barred by qualified immunity.

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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the United States Tax Court’s dismissal of Leslie Siebert Terner’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the Tax Court, as an Article I court, possesses only the jurisdiction conferred by Congress, which requires the issuance of a specific notice—such as a “Notice of Deficiency” under 26 U.S.C. § 6212 or a “Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions” or “Relief From Joint and Several Liability” under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6320 or 6330—before the Tax Court may hear a petition. Because the record contained no evidence that the IRS ever delivered any such notice to the Appellant, and because the Appellant appeared to be seeking recovery of overpayments rather than contesting a threatened collection action, the statutory prerequisites for jurisdiction were not met. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal and denied the motion for leave to supplement the joint appendix.

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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 2:25-CV-02199-JWB-TJJ)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Angeliina Lawson’s civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act against state judges and the State of Kansas. The appellate court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision to overrule Lawson’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which had recommended dismissal following a screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court had dismissed the claims on three grounds: judicial immunity, abstention under *Younger v. Harris* regarding ongoing state proceedings, and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Lawson’s opening brief failed to challenge the specific reasons provided by the district court for these dismissals, the Tenth Circuit declined to question the lower court’s reasoning, noting that an appellant must explain why a district court’s decision is wrong to warrant appellate intervention. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the dismissal of all counts in the amended complaint stands, and Lawson’s motion to submit the appeal on the brief was granted while her related motions were denied as moot.

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: 2026-07-22

Docket: 3:21-cv-08044-JJT

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials against Plaintiff-Appellant Frank Karl Hertel, a prisoner asserting claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Eighth Amendment. The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment rulings and held that the district court correctly determined there were no genuine disputes of material fact warranting trial. Regarding religious liberty claims, the court found the Establishment Clause claim regarding meat denial moot because kosher meat is now provided. For RLUIPA claims concerning dietary restrictions (such as daily fruit, uncut vegetables, and food preparation by non-Jews), the court affirmed that prison officials demonstrated compelling government interests in order and security and utilized the least restrictive means to uphold them. Similarly, First Amendment claims were rejected under the *Turner v. Safley* standard, which requires prison policies to be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The court also upheld the dismissal of Equal Protection claims due to a lack of evidence showing differential treatment between inmates on different diets or regarding legal material access, and affirmed the dismissal of Eighth Amendment claims because the diet did not pose a substantial risk of serious harm and there was no evidence of deliberate indifference. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Hertel’s request for an expert dietician under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 or his motion for reconsideration. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, the appeal is dismissed, and Hertel’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

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