Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Nestor Jose Mendoza-Garcia’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. The court relied on its prior decision in *United States v. Medina-Cantu*, 113 F.4th 537 (5th Cir. 2024), which established that there is no substantial question regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment or the Commerce Clause, thereby foreclosing Mendoza-Garcia’s challenges to the statute despite his attempt to preserve them for further review. As a result of this ruling, the conviction remains in effect and the defendant’s sentence stands.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal filed by Hardik Sureschchandra Patel, a pro se prisoner seeking to challenge a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on procedural default grounds. The court applied the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which requires a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to issue a certificate of appealability. Under this standard, when relief is denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must demonstrate that both the dispositive procedural ruling and the underlying claim of constitutional violation are debatable. Although the court acknowledged that the district court’s finding regarding procedural default might be debatable, it concluded that Patel failed to make the requisite showing because his petition did not provide new evidence of actual innocence, which is necessary to excuse a procedural default under *McQuiggin v. Perkins*. Consequently, the court determined that granting relief would be futile and dismissed the appeal 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: 2026-07-14

The fourth-circuit denied Clinchfield Coal Company’s petition for review of the Benefits Review Board’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s award of black lung benefits under 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. The court applied the standard that its review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions of the ALJ and Board are rational and consistent with applicable law, defining substantial evidence as more than a mere scintilla—specifically, relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Finding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of reversible error, the court denied the petition without oral argument, leaving the award of benefits 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Officer Derrick Burmaster regarding his qualified immunity defense but reversed the judgment holding the City of New Orleans liable, remanding the case for a new trial on municipal liability. The court held that the district court properly submitted the fact-bound question of qualified immunity to the jury after defining the clearly established legal rule, consistent with the allocation of responsibilities under *Melear v. Spears* and *Ramirez v. Killian*, where the judge determines the law and the jury resolves disputed facts to apply that law. Regarding the City’s liability, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) and Fifth Circuit precedent requiring special verdict answers to be consistent. The court found the jury’s answers irreconcilable because they simultaneously found that no City policy caused Apollo’s death while also finding the City liable for violating constitutional rights based on inadequate training, supervision, or discipline. Since municipal liability requires both culpability and causation, these contradictory findings could not stand, necessitating a retrial on the issue of municipal liability.

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: 2026-07-14

Docket: 5:20-cv-06408-

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on liability and damages regarding three trade secrets (D, E, and L). The court held that the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the defendant, XP Power, bore the burden of proving that the alleged trade secrets were “readily ascertainable by proper means” under an affirmative defense. Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving as an essential element of its claim that the information was not readily ascertainable through proper means. The court determined this error was not harmless because the jury instructions were not accurate as a whole, and there was conflicting expert testimony regarding whether the secrets could be reverse-engineered or obtained from public sources, making it impossible to conclude the jury would have reached the same verdict under a correct instruction. As a practical consequence, the judgment awarding $40 million in damages, a permanent injunction, and over $17 million in attorney fees is vacated. The case returns to the district court for a new trial where the burden of proof on “readily ascertainability” will be correctly placed on the plaintiff, Comet Technologies USA, Inc. The panel noted that while it reversed the judgment, it did not reach XP’s challenges to the specific relief awarded in this opinion, though a concurring judge addressed the issue separately, concluding that awarding both damages for unjust enrichment (avoided costs) and injunctive relief does not constitute an impermissible double recovery under the DTSA.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court based its decision on an *Anders* review, concluding that while counsel properly filed a brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues existed for appellate review, the record was not sufficiently developed to allow the court to fairly evaluate McNeal’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the court declined to consider the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal without prejudice to collateral review and dismissed the case under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for Angel Yeferson Reyes-Medina. The court applied a substantial evidence standard to the BIA’s factual findings regarding eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, requiring that the evidence compel a contrary conclusion to disturb the agency’s decision. Regarding CAT claims, the court reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Reyes failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harms he suffered and a protected ground, noting that persecution motivated by personal vendetta or revenge does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. Additionally, the court found that Reyes failed to demonstrate that the evidence compelled a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination regarding government acquiescence for CAT relief. Finally, the court rejected Reyes’ due process claims concerning the denial of a continuance to obtain counsel and the failure to conduct a competency inquiry, ruling that he failed to make the requisite initial showing of substantial prejudice necessary to establish such a violation. Consequently, the petition is denied and the BIA’s order remains 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: 2026-07-14

Docket: 3:23-cv-00225-ART-CLB

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Brian Olvera on Plaintiff James Smith’s excessive force claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, holding that Olvera was entitled to qualified immunity. The court applied de novo review to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that Olvera used excessive force and whether his actions violated clearly established law. While the court acknowledged that a reasonable jury could conclude Olvera deployed deadly force by striking Smith in the head with a baton, it ruled that such conduct did not violate clearly established rights because no precedent existed at the time that would have given an officer “obvious clarity” that striking a suspect under these specific circumstances was unconstitutional. The court’s decision relied on the totality of the circumstances, emphasizing that Smith had conceded he could have reasonably been perceived as possessing a weapon and that his hands were unrestrained during the struggle. The court noted that Olvera was alone in the dark, facing a suspect who had engaged in a reckless six-minute car chase involving collisions with patrol vehicles and failure to stop after repeated orders. Because the record contained evidence supporting Olvera’s belief that Smith posed an ongoing threat due to his potential possession of a weapon and furtive movements, the court found that a reasonable officer could not have known that using a baton in this specific context was unlawful. Consequently, the case is dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, and the judgment for the defendant stands without further proceedings on the merits of the excessive force 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the School Board’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction and granted a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s orders scheduling evidentiary hearings. The court held that once all remaining parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the case was automatically terminated without requiring any court order, rendering any subsequent judicial action null and void. The court applied the standard for appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, concluding that the district court’s orders were not final decisions because they prolonged litigation rather than ending it on the merits. The court further determined that the collateral-order doctrine did not apply because the orders were not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) was inapplicable as the orders did not refuse to dissolve an injunction but merely scheduled hearings to consider dissolution. Regarding mandamus, the court applied the three-prong test requiring that there be no other adequate means of relief, a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the writ be appropriate under the circumstances. The court found these requirements met because Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is self-executing; absent specific exceptions for class actions, derivative suits, unincorporated associations, or receiverships, a stipulation signed by all appearing parties strips the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction immediately. The court rejected the district court’s reliance on public policy concerns under *Brown* and *Green*, noting that those precedents do not authorize a federal court to insist on adjudicating unitary status after the parties authorized to litigate have dismissed the case. The practical consequence is that the School Board’s petition for mandamus was granted, and the district court is ordered to vacate its Memorandum Ruling and subsequent order scheduling evidentiary hearings, effectively ending the sixty-year-old desegregation litigation immediately upon the filing of the stipulation.

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: 2026-07-14

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jason Keller’s federal habeas corpus petition, ruling that the Mississippi Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or make unreasonable factual determinations regarding the admissibility of a confession Keller made while in an intensive care unit (ICU). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the court applied a highly deferential standard, requiring that relief be granted only if the state court’s decision was contrary to Supreme Court precedent or involved an unreasonable application of such law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court addressed four specific arguments raised by Keller regarding the ICU statement: 1. **Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:** The court held that the doctrine did not require suppression because the prior Emergency Room (ER) statements were excluded only for *Miranda* violations, not due to actual police coercion violating the Due Process Clause. Under *Oregon v. Elstad*, a subsequent confession is admissible if it is voluntary and not the product of actual compulsion, which was absent here as the trial court found no coercive police activity during the ER interrogations. 2. **Deliberate Exploitation of Miranda (*Missouri v. Seibert*):** The court ruled that *Seibert*, which prohibits a “question-first” interrogation strategy designed to undermine *Miranda* warnings, was inapplicable. The Fifth Circuit found no evidence of the two-step technique contemplated by *Seibert*, noting significant differences in timing (11 hours elapsed), setting (ER vs. ICU), and police conduct, as officers approached the ICU interview anew without relying on prior confessions. 3. **Voluntariness:** Applying the totality of circumstances test from *Colorado v. Connelly* and *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte*, the court affirmed that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate for finding a confession involuntary. The court found it reasonable for the state court to conclude that Keller’s mental state, influenced by morphine and cocaine, did not render his statement involuntary in the absence of specific police overreaching or psychological pressure. 4. **Valid *Miranda* Waiver:** Relying on *Berghuis v. Thompkins*, the court agreed with the state court that Keller’s waiver was valid even if implied rather than express. The record supported a finding that Keller understood his rights, appeared coherent and alert, and voluntarily engaged in a detailed narrative confession. As a practical consequence of this affirmation, the judgment of the district court denying habeas relief stands, and the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision upholding Keller’s conviction and death sentence remains in effect. No further federal relief is available on the certified issue regarding the ICU statement.

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