Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Andrew Tarver’s claim for Social Security disability benefits. The court applied the substantial-evidence standard of review, which requires affirming the Commissioner’s findings if they are supported by evidence that is more than a scintilla but need not be a preponderance. Under this standard, the appellate court cannot re-weigh the evidence, try the questions de novo, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. The court held that Tarver’s appeal failed because his arguments were generalized assertions lacking specific legal citations or record references, and the administrative record contained sufficient credible evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision. Specifically, the record included opinions from three state agency physicians (Drs. Martorella, Hall-Hoskins, and Ligon) who concluded that Tarver was not disabled and could perform sedentary work with specific restrictions, including ready access to a restroom for no more than 10% of the workday. The court noted that this finding was consistent with Tarver’s own testimony regarding the duration of his bathroom breaks. Furthermore, the court rejected Tarver’s contention regarding his treating physician’s opinion, noting that the opinion addressed a period outside the relevant timeframe for determining disability under the Social Security Act, which requires an impairment lasting at least 12 months. As a result of this affirmation, the Commissioner’s determination that Tarver is not disabled stands final and binding. The judgment is affirmed, and no further relief or remand is granted to 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fifth Circuit granted Exxon Mobil Corporation’s petition for review, vacated the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s order affirming an OSHA citation and penalty, and set aside OSHA’s regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1904.5(b)(2)(ix) which required employers to record work-related mental illnesses. The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not grant OSHA the statutory authority to mandate the recording of mental illnesses because the term “illnesses” in 29 U.S.C. § 657(c)(2) is best read, based on statutory context and contemporaneous dictionary definitions, to refer only to physical ailments. The court reasoned that the statute’s structure, which pairs “injuries” and “illnesses” while excluding “minor injuries” involving physical limitations like loss of consciousness or restriction of work, indicates Congress intended a narrower scope limited to physical harms. Furthermore, the court found that OSHA’s reliance on general legislative purpose and broad dictionary definitions was insufficient to overcome the specific statutory text and context, concluding that agencies must point to explicit congressional authority for such regulatory actions. As a result, OSHA exceeded its delegated power by promulgating the rule, rendering the citation and penalty against Exxon invalid.

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: 2026-07-21

Docket: 2:21-cv-00984-JAD-EJY

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders granting partial summary judgment, damages, and injunctive relief to the United States Secretary of Labor against nail salon owners Nicole Brown and Asia Trinh for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and 37(b)(2) for the defendants’ deletion of electronically stored information, failure to produce records in native format, and other vexatious conduct during discovery. The appellate court found these sanctions were no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice caused by the spoliation of text messages and surveillance footage critical to establishing workers’ hours and control. Additionally, the court affirmed the exclusion of unauthenticated exhibits and documents not filed in compliance with local rules. Regarding the merits of the FLSA claims, the court applied de novo review and concluded that the nail technicians were employees rather than independent contractors because the defendants exerted near-complete control over their work schedules, assignments, and discipline, provided equipment and space, and controlled customer relations. The court further determined that Brown and Trinh qualified as “employers” under the FLSA due to their significant ownership interest and operational control. The court affirmed the finding of willful violations based on evidence that the defendants attempted to evade compliance by coaching employees on how to respond to investigators and backdating agreements, which triggered the three-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the district court’s award of back wages, liquidated damages, and a permanent injunction prohibiting future FLSA violations was upheld. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the Secretary of Labor stands, requiring the defendants to pay the assessed damages and comply with the permanent injunction. The defendants’ appeals regarding sanctions, evidentiary rulings, and other procedural arguments were rejected, leaving the district court’s orders fully effective.

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 dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court’s order denying Bolick’s motion for summary judgment is not a final decision or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292. The court applied the standard rule that denials of summary judgment are generally not appealable prior to a final judgment, citing *Cooper v. Doyle* and *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.* As a result, the appellate court lacks authority to review the merits of the underlying civil rights claim at this stage, and the case remains in the district court for further proceedings until a final order is entered.

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 Kristin Tkach-Pelgrim’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking orders to conduct a detention review, enforce a competency order, conduct a Faretta hearing, and declare her pretrial detention unlawful under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner has a clear right to relief and no other adequate means to attain it, noting that it cannot serve as a substitute for appeal. The court found relief unavailable because Tkach-Pelgrim had previously sought habeas corpus relief under § 2241 in the district court, which was denied, and she failed to appeal that denial; additionally, her competency evaluation had already been completed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed 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 judgment revoking Devante N’Kee Wilson’s supervised release and imposing a total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to review the revocation, examining legal conclusions de novo and factual determinations for clear error. Regarding the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim raised by counsel under *Anders v. California*, the court held that no constitutional violation occurred because a violation requires compulsion to be a witness against oneself in a criminal case, which was not present when Wilson committed a violation on which he took no position. On the sentencing issue, the court applied the “plainly unreasonable” standard, confirming that the sentence was within the statutory range and that the district court did not err in ordering consecutive sentences for revocations of concurrent supervised release terms under *United States v. Johnson*. The practical consequence is that Wilson’s conviction and sentence stand; counsel must inform Wilson of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review, and if he requests a petition while counsel deems it frivolous, counsel may move to withdraw.

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 Peter James Sovula’s petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals orders that dismissed his appeals regarding the denial of cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that Sovula forfeited appellate review of these adverse agency rulings because his pro se filings, even when liberally construed, failed to meaningfully challenge or address the dispositive decisions below. Applying the forfeiture rule established in *Ullah v. Garland* and the standard for determining whether a miscarriage of justice would result from applying that rule as set forth in *Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder*, the court concluded that Sovula’s failure to raise these issues in his briefs precluded further review. Consequently, the petition was denied without oral argument, leaving the immigration judge’s and Board’s adverse decisions 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: 2026-07-21

Docket: 2:22-cv-01157-SPG-JEM

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, holding that the insurance policies issued by Berkley Insurance Company and Great American Insurance Company did not provide coverage for Cachet Financial Services’ claims due to the application of the “Fraudulent Instructions Exclusion.” Applying California state law and reviewing the case de novo, the court determined that the exclusion language was unambiguous and expressly barred coverage for losses resulting from instructions that prove to be fraudulent. The court rejected Cachet’s argument that the phrase “which instruction proves to be fraudulent” should be interpreted as the defined term “Fraudulent instruction,” noting that the policy’s formatting conventions indicated defined terms were used only when enclosed in quotation marks, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the court found that the exclusion did not render the coverage illusory because Cachet could not reasonably expect coverage for a loss expressly excluded by the policy terms, and the potential for narrow application of the remaining coverage under Insuring Agreement A.6.a.(1) did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting non-enforcement of the clear contractual language. As a result, the dismissal of Cachet’s complaint is upheld, leaving the insurers without liability for the disputed claims.

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 Reginald Larue Spivey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal because he failed to make a substantial showing that the district court denied him a constitutional right. The court applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which requires a prisoner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong, particularly when the denial rests on procedural grounds. The court concluded that Spivey did not meet this burden because his “Motion of Actual Innocent Claim” was properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and absent prefiling authorization from the appellate court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). As a result, the appeal is dismissed without oral argument, leaving the district court’s dismissal of the motion in place.

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 Lucy Tantoh Taku’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and substantial evidence review to factual findings, holding that reversal is only appropriate when the record compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s decision. The court affirmed the adverse credibility determination, finding that the immigration judge provided numerous cogent reasons supported by the record, including omissions, inconsistent statements, and inherently improbable testimony. Regarding the asylum claim, the court found that Taku failed to independently verify her allegations of past or future persecution because the Board provided sufficient reasons to discredit her corroborating affidavits and letters. The court further held that Taku could not sustain her CAT claim by relying on documents previously deemed incredible for other purposes. Finally, the court rejected Taku’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to satisfy the three requirements established in *Matter of Lozada*. As a result of this decision, the petition is denied and the Board’s order denying all forms of relief remains in effect. The case will not proceed to oral argument.

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