Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, holding that Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act requires the Secretary to affirmatively approve any rebate mechanism before drug manufacturers may unilaterally implement it. The court rejected the manufacturers’ argument that they could impose their proposed post-purchase rebate models on covered entities without prior authorization, reasoning that the statutory text explicitly limits price reductions to those “as provided by the Secretary.” Under 42 U.S.C. § 256b(a)(1), the phrase “taking into account any rebate or discount, as provided by the Secretary” grants the Secretary control over the administration of pricing mechanisms, placing the agency in the driver’s seat rather than allowing manufacturers to experiment with new models on their own. While the court confirmed that the statute permits rebate models generally, it found that because the Secretary has never authorized a mechanism encompassing the specific proposals at issue, the manufacturers were required to await approval while the Secretary studied their plans. Consequently, the manufacturers’ claims that the Secretary’s refusal to allow immediate implementation was arbitrary and capricious or failed to consider key benefits are unripe for review, as the agency’s consideration of the proposals remains ongoing.

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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Count One, which charged Concepcion Gerardo Palomares with unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based on his prior conviction for transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court held that the government may disarm Palomares consistent with the Second Amendment because alien smuggling is an inherently dangerous felony. Applying the standard established in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen* and refined in *United States v. Diaz*, the court determined that Congress has the authority to disarm classes of people it reasonably deems dangerous. The opinion reasoned that, similar to drug trafficking, alien smuggling is “inherently dangerous and often results in death and injury,” a conclusion supported by sentencing enhancements and the consensus of all three branches of government regarding the risks posed by human trafficking. Consequently, the court found that lifetime disarmament for this category of offender aligns with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court reviewed the record and determined that no reversible error existed, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights regarding medical care. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant stands, and the case is closed without further proceedings or relief for the appellant.

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: 2026-07-21

Docket: 5:24-CV-04016-JAR)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a civil rights action challenging library policies restricting speech. The court held that Justin Spiehs lacked standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding unapplied policies and failed to demonstrate subjective deterrence for applied policies, as he intended to continue his expressive conduct. Regarding damages claims, the court ruled that the library’s policies prohibiting signs and protesting were content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions valid in a designated public forum because they were narrowly tailored to serve the significant governmental interest of preserving a quiet environment conducive to reading and study, while leaving ample alternative channels for communication. The court further rejected Spiehs’ equal protection claims, finding he was not similarly situated to other patrons treated more favorably due to factual differences in how signs were displayed versus worn as clothing, and dismissed his procedural due process claim as waived for omission from the pretrial order. Finally, the retaliation claim failed because Spiehs’ conduct violated valid restrictions and thus was not constitutionally protected activity. Consequently, the judgment for the defendants stands, and no relief is granted to the plaintiff.

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: 2026-07-21

The fourth-circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to make the requisite showing required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court applied the standard from *Gonzalez v. Thaler*, which mandates that when a district court denies relief on procedural grounds, a prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Finding that Mason White Hyde did not meet this burden regarding the dismissal of his petition as successive and unauthorized, the court denied his request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case without oral argument. Additionally, the court denied Hyde’s motion for assignment of counsel on appeal.

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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Tonyell Toliver’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and fraud claims against A Professional Law Corporation. The court held that both claims were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations, providing an independent ground for affirmation under *Kovac v. Wray*. Specifically, the FDCPA claim prescribed one year after APLC served Toliver with a state court petition on May 22, 2024, rendering her July 10, 2025 filing untimely under *Rotkiske v. Klemm*. Similarly, the Louisiana state law fraud claim was subject to a one-year prescription period under Civil Code article 3492, which began on May 22, 2024, and expired before Toliver filed suit. Consequently, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Toliver’s motion to amend her complaint, as any amendment would have been futile given the claims were already barred.

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: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit denied Magus Jamye Reficul Ahnend’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to rule on his objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation. The court held that the record did not reveal any undue delay by the district court in addressing these objections. Consequently, the petition was denied without oral argument, as the existing materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions necessary for the decision.

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: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit denied Magus Jamye Reficul Ahnend’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to rule on his objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court held that the petition was moot because its review of the district court docket confirmed that the district court had already adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Ahnend’s underlying civil case on June 25, 2026. Consequently, since the district court had resolved the matter pending before it, there was no longer a live controversy for the appellate court to address, resulting in the immediate denial of the petition without oral argument.

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: 2026-07-21

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing William Parke Custis’s civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that there was no reversible error in the lower court’s decision to dismiss the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, which govern the screening of prisoner civil actions and the dismissal of frivolous or meritless claims. As a result, the district court’s dismissal order stands, and the case is closed without oral argument.

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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence in a criminal case where the defendant, Ndem Oduu, pleaded guilty to theft of government property and received a 45-month prison term. The court applied the plain error standard of review because the appeal was brought pro se without a waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. The court held that Oduu failed to demonstrate that the district court erred or committed plain error regarding: (1) the sufficiency of the factual basis for accepting his guilty plea; (2) the denial of his motion to suppress, which was waived by his valid and unconditional guilty plea; (3) claims of prosecutorial misconduct in obtaining a superseding indictment due to lack of tangible evidence; (4) the constructive amendment of the indictment; and (5) sentencing calculations involving loss amounts under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), relevant conduct, and alleged breaches of the plea agreement. The court further affirmed the district court’s order denying Oduu’s motion to produce grand jury transcripts, finding no abuse of discretion, and denied his alternative motions for leave to proceed on the original record (granted) and government-funded transcripts (denied). As a result, the district court’s judgment and orders remain in full force.

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