Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing a brief filed in accordance with *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the record contained no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, finding the appeal lacked arguable merit. Consequently, the attorney was excused from further responsibilities in the case, and the appeal was terminated without a decision on the merits of the underlying criminal conviction.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of motions to intervene and dismissed the remaining claims for want of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that intervention was futile because 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) expressly preempts Texas Education Code §§ 54.051(m) and 54.052(a), which authorize illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition rates based on residency while out-of-state U.S. citizens must pay higher nonresident rates. Applying a de novo standard of review, the court determined that the challenged provisions grant postsecondary education benefits “on the basis of residence” to illegal aliens without ensuring that all U.S. citizens are eligible for the same benefit regardless of residency, thereby violating the federal statute’s plain text and the Supremacy Clause. The court rejected arguments regarding the presumption against preemption, Tenth Amendment commandeering concerns, and severability, concluding that § 1623(a) is a valid limitation on alien eligibility rather than a direct command to states. Regarding appellate jurisdiction, the court ruled that because the movants were denied leave to intervene, they never attained party status in the underlying litigation between the United States and Texas. Under established precedent, nonparties who have not been granted intervention lack standing to appeal a consent judgment entered in that suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals challenging the consent judgment and the motions to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The practical consequence is that the district court’s consent judgment permanently enjoining Texas from enforcing the challenged tuition provisions remains in effect, and the intervenors’ attempts to defend the state law are terminated.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the 78-month sentence imposed on Erlin Alexander Castro-Medina for illegal reentry into the United States. The court held that Castro-Medina failed to demonstrate plain error regarding his challenges to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons, the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and the imposition of supervised release under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). The court reasoned that the district court articulated specific, individualized reasons tied to pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Castro-Medina’s history of removals and criminal conduct, thereby negating any clear or obvious error. Additionally, the record did not support a finding that additional explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence or that the supervised release order was reversible plain error. As a result, the judgment of the district court remains in effect and the sentence is enforced.

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: 2026-07-09

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment excluding two of the plaintiff’s experts and granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court held that there was no error in the district court’s well-reasoned decisions regarding the admissibility of the expert testimony and the propriety of the summary judgment ruling. As a result, the lower court’s dismissal of the personal injury claim stands, and the plaintiff’s appeal is denied without further proceedings on the merits.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants SI Group, Bulk Solutions, and Brenner Tank Services in a Texas premises-liability and products-liability action arising from an accident where a hot water tanker trailer tipped over on gravel, scalding the plaintiff. The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment rulings and abuse of discretion review to the exclusion of expert testimony. Regarding the premises-liability claim against SI Group, the court held that the district court correctly found no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether SI Group knew or should have known of a dangerous condition (Type 1 defect) or retained supervisory control over the contractor’s work creating the hazard (Type 2 defect). The court determined that post-accident reports and hearsay testimony regarding leaks did not establish SI Group’s prior knowledge, and the contractor agreement explicitly placed safety responsibilities on the independent contractor, Veolia, without SI Group exercising actual control contrary to the contract. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s exclusion of expert Benjamin Gibson’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding he lacked specialized expertise regarding SI Group’s actual or constructive knowledge of the condition and merely offered legal conclusions based on evidence. Regarding the products-liability claims against Bulk Solutions and Brenner Tank Services, the court affirmed summary judgment for Bulk as a non-manufacturing seller under Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. For Brenner, the court held that no duty to warn existed because the risk of uncoupling a trailer on an unlevel surface without matting was obvious to foreseeable users with special training and commercial driver’s licenses. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the risk-utility analysis required for a design defect claim under Texas law, finding no evidence that safer alternative designs were readily available without impairing utility or increasing costs, nor that the trailer’s design rendered it unreasonably dangerous given the user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers. As a practical consequence, the judgment in favor of all defendants stands, and the plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.

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: 2026-07-09

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Matthew Darnell Pittman’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review, requiring that a district court must determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction, ensure the reduction is consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements, and consider applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Pittman argued that his change in status regarding career offender classification constituted such reasons; however, the court found no error in the district court’s conclusion that this argument lacked merit because the underlying convictions supporting his career offender status remained valid predicate controlled substance offenses. Consequently, the appellate court held that the district court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally and affirmed the order denying 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Shane Privette, holding that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The court resolved the appeal solely on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, determining whether the right alleged was “clearly established” at the time of the incident, without reaching the question of whether the officer’s conduct actually violated the Fourth Amendment. The court applied the standard that qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law, requiring plaintiffs to show that existing precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue. The court framed the legal question with specificity: whether it was clearly established in April 2022 that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force against a suspect with active felony warrants who exits a vehicle, retrieves an unidentified object from the passenger side, turns toward officers while holding the object, and is shot before having time to comply with a command to show his hands. In applying this standard, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify controlling authority or a robust consensus of persuasive authority placing the lawfulness of Privette’s actions “beyond debate.” The court distinguished the three cases relied upon by the plaintiffs (*Baker v. Putnal*, *Cole v. Carson*, and *Poole v. City of Shreveport*) based on material factual differences, specifically noting that unlike in those precedents, it was undisputed here that Privette attempted to warn Randle, Randle held an object he had just retrieved from a car, and Randle had a known history of felony warrants involving firearms. Because no case with analogous facts clearly prohibited the officer’s conduct under these specific circumstances, the court concluded that Privette did not violate clearly established law. The practical consequence is that the judgment for Officer Privette stands, dismissing the excessive force claim against him. The plaintiffs’ appeal regarding supervisory liability and municipal claims was not addressed by this opinion, which explicitly limited its determination to the qualified immunity defense of the individual officer.

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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order suppressing evidence of child pornography discovered on a defendant’s iPhone 13 Pro Max. The court held that the government failed to meet its heavy burden of demonstrating that the agents acted with objective good faith under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, despite possessing a valid search warrant. The court applied the standard established in *Herring v. United States* and *United States v. Leon*, which permits the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment only when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant. The analysis focused on whether it was reasonable for the agents to believe their search of the seized device was covered by the warrant, considering the warrant’s language and the circumstances at the time of execution. The court found objective good faith lacking for two primary reasons: first, the warrant unambiguously specified the “Apple iPhone 6S 64GB” with a unique IMEI number as the only property to be searched, and the affidavit supporting the warrant explicitly limited probable cause to that specific device; second, the executing agents knew immediately upon seizure that they had taken an iPhone 13, not the authorized iPhone 6s, yet failed to take any reasonable steps to resolve this discrepancy, such as asking the defendant if he still possessed the original iPhone 6s or confirming whether data had been transferred. The court emphasized that the agents’ failure to inquire about the device mismatch, combined with their omission of critical warrant details when explaining the scope to the defendant in Spanish, rendered their conduct reckless and not objectively reasonable. As a practical consequence, the evidence obtained from the search of the iPhone 13 was excluded from trial, and the government’s appeal was denied, leaving the district court’s suppression order 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

Docket: 5:23-CV-04044-JWB)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State of Kansas in a Title VII employment discrimination case brought by Terri Thurman, a former court clerk. The court held that Ms. Thurman failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims of a hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge based on gender. Applying de novo review under the summary judgment standard, the court determined that a reasonable fact-finder could not attribute the alleged bullying by Judge Johnson or the acquiescence of administrator Mr. Young to Ms. Thurman’s gender. The court reasoned that while Ms. Thurman presented evidence that the judge mistreated two other women, this distinction was insufficient to prove discriminatory motive given that the judge had also mistreated male colleagues and that many employees of both genders did not complain about his conduct. Relying on the persuasive reasoning in *Overfield v. Kansas*, the court found that the totality of circumstances did not support an inference that the abusive work environment was caused by gender discrimination. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court applied the “but-for” causation standard required under *University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar*. The court concluded that Ms. Thurman failed to provide evidence linking adverse actions—such as delays in filling a vacancy or delays in receiving weekly calendars—to her protected complaints. Specifically, the court noted a lack of evidence that Judge Johnson made the alleged announcement regarding her complaint and found that temporal proximity alone was insufficient to infer causation for incidents occurring more than three months after the protected activity. Finally, the court held that the claim of constructive discharge failed because it is predicated on the existence of impermissible discrimination, which Ms. Thurman could not substantiate. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the State of Kansas 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s permanent injunction that had enjoined enforcement of the entire Protect Illinois Communities Act, holding that the Act’s restrictions on AR-15 rifles and thirty-round rifle magazines are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under the Second Amendment. Applying the two-step framework established in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen*, the court assumed for purposes of its ruling that these items constitute “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text, thereby shifting the burden to the government to demonstrate historical consistency. The court determined that the Act satisfies this burden because it targets weapons that are “particularly dangerous” and capable of “unprecedented lethality,” a regulatory principle supported by historical analogues such as 19th-century bans on Bowie knives and modern prohibitions on machine guns. The court reasoned that while AR-15s are widely owned, their military-like features and the ability to fire high volumes of lethal rounds quickly create a distinct societal concern regarding mass shootings that justifies targeted restrictions comparable to historical regulations of dangerous weapons. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ facial challenge because they failed to demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act’s provisions would be valid, as the plaintiffs did not address every application of the statute. The case is remanded with directions to enter judgments for the defendants, allowing the Act to remain in effect.

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