Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Earnestine Saxton Washington’s civil rights and wrongful death complaint. The court held that Washington failed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating that officials acted with subjective deliberate indifference, a necessary element for her Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the suicide of Antonio Saxton. Specifically, the opinion noted the absence of allegations showing that Saxton had a history of suicidal ideation or mental illness, or that defendants were aware of a substantial risk of his death; the court reiterated that there is no independent constitutional right to suicide screening absent such knowledge. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of state law claims for wrongful death, survival, and negligence due to the lack of foreseeable risk, and declined to address municipal liability under *Monell* because Washington abandoned any challenge to the finding that she failed to plead official policy or custom as the moving force behind a violation. Finally, the court concluded that further amendment of the complaint would be futile, affirming the district court’s denial of leave to amend.

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: 2026-06-30

The ninth-circuit granted the petition in part, denied it in part, and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings. The court held that the BIA erred in concluding the petitioner’s past harm did not constitute persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act because the agency failed to apply Ninth Circuit precedent from *Guo v. Sessions*, which establishes that similar police beatings, detention, and restrictions on religious practice compel a finding of past persecution. Consequently, the court determined the petitioner is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution for his asylum and withholding of removal claims, requiring the BIA to determine whether the government can rebut this presumption. The court denied the petition regarding the claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture because the petitioner failed to exhaust that claim before the agency.

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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 2:21-cv-02109-RFB-NJK

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denial of partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, Parnell Colvin and Richard Vela, who sued their labor union under the Labor Management Reporting and Act (LMRDA). The court held that the plaintiffs’ due process claim failed as a matter of law because, although they were expelled without a full and fair hearing in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5), they refused to pay supplemental dues which the union constitution authorized. Applying a deferential standard to the union’s interpretation of its own constitution, the court found no evidence that the dues were voluntary or that the union acted in bad faith. Regarding the fiduciary duty claim, the court ruled that enforcing payment obligations under the union constitution did not constitute a breach of duty, noting the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of intentional misconduct, fraud, or a knowing violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 78.138(7)(b)(2). Additionally, the court rejected the retaliatory discharge claim under 29 U.S.C. § 529, determining that while the plaintiffs engaged in protected activity by criticizing union leaders, they failed to provide direct or specific and substantial evidence that the union’s non-discriminatory reason for their expulsion was a pretext for impermissible retaliation. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims stands, and the defendants remain free from liability on these grounds.

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: 2026-06-30

The ninth-circuit denied Rogelio Maldonado Rosas’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmation of an Immigration Judge’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Rosas failed to meet his burden of proving it was “more likely than not” he would be tortured if removed to Mexico, noting a lack of evidence regarding personal torture in Mexico and testimony indicating his primary fear concerned access to healthcare rather than torture. Additionally, the court found no error in the agency’s consideration of country conditions reports or the Immigration Judge’s record development, ruling that Rosas did not satisfy the required elements to prove the agency ignored highly probative evidence or that the judge failed to develop the record given Rosas’s own testimony focused on non-CAT grounds. As a practical consequence, the petition is denied, and the court granted Rosas’s motion for miscellaneous relief by lifting the temporary stay of removal upon the issuance of the mandate.

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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 3:24-cv-03713-CRB

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Fenix International Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court applied the three-prong test for specific personal jurisdiction, focusing on whether the defendant “expressly aimed” its conduct at California under the purposeful direction standard used for tort claims. Relying on the en banc decision in *Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.*, the appellate court held that Fenix’s operation of a website resulting in over 10,000 California subscriptions and $400 million in annual revenue from California consumers constituted substantial profits derived from a regular course of business, thereby satisfying the “expressly aimed” element. The court determined that these facts were not random, isolated, or fortuitous and that Fenix structured its sales activities to invite orders from California. Consequently, the case is remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether the remaining prongs of the personal jurisdiction test—whether the claim arises out of Fenix’s forum-related activities and whether exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice—are satisfied, while also addressing any pending motions regarding leave to amend or forum non conveniens.

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: 2026-06-30

The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed Gustavo Salas-Romero’s conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The court held that Salas-Romero’s argument challenging the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement in § 1326(b) is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States*, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which permits judges to find only “the fact of a prior conviction” as a narrow exception to the rule requiring jury findings for sentencing factors. Relying on *United States v. Pervis* and the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation in *Erlinger v. United States*, the court determined that no further briefing was necessary and denied the government’s alternative motion for an extension of time. As a result, the district court’s judgment stands, and the case is closed with no relief 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-30

The ninth-circuit denied Ben-Tov Tzarchei’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that upheld an Immigration Judge’s denial of special rule cancellation of removal for a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The court held that it could not consider Tzarchei’s argument that the statutory term “spouse” includes putative spouses in void or voidable marriages because he failed to present this specific legal claim to the BIA, thereby violating the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). While Tzarchei had argued before the agency that he could prove his second marriage was valid by producing evidence of a prior divorce, he did not raise the alternative theory regarding the definition of “spouse” until this court proceeding. As a mandatory claim-processing rule, the exhaustion requirement bars the court from considering arguments not first presented to the agency, and because Tzarchei no longer contends in this forum that his marriage is valid, he forfeited any claim that his second wife qualifies as a spouse under the agency’s construction of the statute. Consequently, the petition is denied without reaching the merits of the statutory interpretation issue.

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: 2026-06-30

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting Benlin Yuan pretrial release with conditions but vacated the portion of that order enjoining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from taking custody of the defendant. The court determined that the United States failed to properly perfect its appeal because it filed a “motion to vacate” rather than the required “memorandum” mandated by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(a) and Fifth Circuit Rule 9.1 for appeals concerning pretrial release orders. The court clarified that while a motion is an appropriate mechanism under Rule 9(b) to review detention orders after a conviction when the defendant has already appealed their judgment, such motions are not the correct vehicle for challenging pretrial release decisions. Consequently, because the government did not follow the proper procedural format, the court could not grant relief on the merits of the motion to vacate the district court’s ruling regarding ICE custody, resulting in the vacation of that specific injunction while leaving the conditions of release intact.

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: 2026-06-30

Docket: 2:24-cv-01570-BJR

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Seattle Children’s Hospital but reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Regarding the FCA claim, the court applied a de novo standard of review, requiring plaintiffs to plausibly allege protected conduct, defendant knowledge of that conduct, and retaliatory discrimination. The court found the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they did not provide non-conclusory allegations linking the hospital’s replacement of their services with other providers to their reporting concerns, nor did they establish actionable harassment or a “constructive non-renewal” theory given that they continued working for over 15 months after reporting. Regarding procedural matters, the court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice without providing an explanation for denying leave to amend, as such a failure is not an exercise of discretion under *Foman v. Davis*. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court for further consideration regarding whether leave to amend should be granted, while the denial of the motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is affirmed.

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: 2026-06-30

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing an appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish the required nexus between the harm she suffered or feared and a protected ground under immigration law. Specifically, the court found the record supported the determination that the petitioner was a victim of crime and a personal dispute rather than persecution based on her membership in proposed particular social groups, such as “Honduran females who are victims of domestic violence by their husbands and unable to leave their marriage.” The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, noting that administrative factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Because the lack of a nexus was dispositive of both the asylum and withholding claims, the court declined to address other issues, including the petitioner’s forfeited challenge to the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. As a result, the petition is denied and the agency’s order denying relief remains in effect.

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