Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 6:24-cr-00128-CEM-LHP-1

The eleventh-circuit affirmed a within-guidelines sentence of life imprisonment for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and thirty years’ imprisonment for producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court determined the district court procedurally satisfied its obligation by explicitly acknowledging consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors on the record. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, explaining that the district court did not impermissibly punish Trexler for exercising his right to trial or proceeding pro se, but rather properly considered his failure to plead guilty when assessing unwarranted sentence disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and his dishonesty regarding pro se filings as relevant to his characteristics under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Consequently, the district court’s judgment 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati Insurance Company, holding that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify Wayne Hunt under its insurance policies issued to Wilmington Shipping Company. The court held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction because the South Carolina state court default judgment against Hunt was final and conclusive under state law despite pending motions to vacate, establishing a justiciable case or controversy regarding the duty to indemnify. In evaluating the request for a stay of federal proceedings pending state court resolution, the court applied the *Nautilus* factors and found no abuse of discretion, determining that South Carolina had a weak interest in applying North Carolina insurance law, the state court could not resolve the coverage issue efficiently as Cincinnati was not a party, and there was minimal risk of entanglement. On the merits of the proposed amendment to assert an MCS-90 endorsement counterclaim, the court interpreted 49 U.S.C. § 13906 and 49 C.F.R. § 387.5 to define “insured” as the named motor carrier only, ruling that enforcement against Hunt would be futile since he was not the named insured. The court further rejected the argument that summary judgment was premature, noting Owens had access to discovery on the issue and failed to develop arguments justifying deferral. Consequently, Cincinnati’s declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Hunt stands, and the federal action concludes in favor of the insurer.

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: 2026-08-10

Docket: 4:22-md-03047-YGR

The ninth-circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Meta’s and TikTok’s interlocutory appeals from district court orders that partly rejected their Section 230 arguments, and it also dismissed the plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeals. The court’s stated basis was that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit. Under the collateral-order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable only if it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The panel said the orders here failed all three requirements: denial of a Section 230 defense can be reviewed after final judgment; the district court had indicated it might revisit the issue later, so its ruling was not conclusive; and deciding Section 230 requires claim-by-claim examination of the plaintiffs’ theories and factual allegations, so it is not completely separate from the merits. The practical consequence is that the multidistrict litigation continues in the district court, the challenged claims may proceed there for now, and any Section 230 issues must be raised later in an appeal from a final judgment or through another authorized route such as certified interlocutory review. The court also denied Meta’s emergency motion to stay trial as moot.

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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The sixth-circuit denied the petition for review seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), as well as a challenge to the immigration judge’s rescission of administrative closure. The court held that Ortega Villalba forfeited review of dispositive grounds supporting the denial of relief because arguments not meaningfully developed in an opening brief are forfeited, specifically failing to challenge the agency’s no-nexus ruling, social-group cognizability, and future-persecution findings for asylum and withholding claims under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), while her CAT claim was forfeited due to a conclusory sentence failing to address torture or official acquiescence requirements under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) and 1208.18(a)(1). On the due process claim regarding administrative closure, the court applied the standard requiring a showing of prejudice—that a procedural defect led to a substantially different outcome—and found none because administrative closure is discretionary and the immigration judge relied on independent case-management reasons for rescission, including the age of proceedings and completed merits hearing. The court further found no evidence of judicial bias under *Liteky v. United States*. As a result, the petition is denied and the motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

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: 2026-08-10

Docket: 4:22-md-03047-YGR

The ninth-circuit dismissed Meta Platforms, Inc., TikTok entities’, and plaintiffs’ cross-appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s rulings denying motions to dismiss based on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act were not immediately appealable. The court held that section 230 provides a defense to liability rather than immunity from suit, meaning an order denying such protection does not satisfy the collateral order doctrine under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Specifically, the court found the ruling was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, was not conclusive as the district court indicated willingness to revisit the issue, and was inextricably linked to the merits of the action. As a result, the appeals are dismissed and the litigation proceeds in the district court without interlocutory review of the section 230 immunity 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The ninth-circuit denied Drip More’s petition for review and left in place the FDA’s marketing denial order for its candy- and fruit-flavored e-cigarette products. The court held that the FDA lawfully denied the premarket tobacco applications because Drip More did not provide the comparative scientific evidence the agency required to show that its flavored products were “appropriate for the protection of the public health” under 21 U.S.C. § 387j(c)(2)(A). The court said the Tobacco Control Act makes the FDA’s review inherently comparative: the agency must weigh whether a new product is likely to help existing smokers switch or quit against the likelihood that nonusers, especially youth, will start using it, and the statute also calls for information on whether a product presents less risk than other tobacco products. Applying that standard, the FDA reasonably required robust and reliable evidence—such as randomized controlled trials, longitudinal cohort studies, or similarly strong evidence—showing that Drip More’s flavored products offered a greater benefit to adult smokers than tobacco-flavored ENDS, enough to outweigh the known youth-appeal risks of flavored ENDS. The court found the denial was not arbitrary or capricious because Drip More did not submit that comparative-efficacy evidence and did not meaningfully distinguish its products from the general youth risks associated with flavored vapes. The court also rejected Drip More’s arguments that the FDA improperly ignored its marketing plan and sales restrictions, explaining that the agency gave reasons for not reaching those materials once the applications failed the comparative-efficacy requirement, and any error was harmless because Drip More did not show its proposed restrictions materially differed from measures the FDA had already found ineffective at preventing youth access. The court further rejected Drip More’s challenge to the inclusion of its “zero nicotine” products because Drip More’s own applications represented those products were covered by the Tobacco Control Act. Finally, the court held the FDA did not need to adopt the comparative-efficacy requirement through notice-and-comment rulemaking under either the Tobacco Control Act or the APA; absent a statutory command to proceed by rule, the agency could develop and apply that standard through case-by-case adjudication. As a practical result, Drip More’s applications remain denied, and the company cannot market the covered products unless it obtains FDA authorization through new or revised applications that satisfy the statutory public-health standard.

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: 2026-08-10

Docket: 1:24-CV-02558-RMR-KAS)

The tenth-circuit dismissed an appeal challenging a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in an employment contract dispute involving non-competition and non-disclosure provisions. The court held the appeal was moot under Article III because the preliminary injunction expired by its own terms while the case was pending on appeal, leaving no ongoing controversy to resolve. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and *Fleming v. Gutierrez*, the court explained that an interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction is moot where the effective time period of the injunction has passed. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the underlying trade secret interpretation remained live, noting that preliminary injunction findings are not binding at trial on the merits under *Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch* and no final judgment existed for review. Additionally, the court found the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception inapplicable because a renewed injunction would likely differ in scope and the appellant’s delays contributed to the expiration before resolution. The court declined to vacate the expired district court order, adhering to the usual practice of dismissing moot interlocutory appeals without vacatur.

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: 2026-08-10

Docket: 4:22-md-03047-YGR

The ninth-circuit dismissed Meta Platforms, Inc., TikTok entities, and plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s order denying motions to dismiss based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not immediately appealable. The court held that Section 230 provides a defense to liability rather than immunity from suit, meaning an order denying such protection does not satisfy the collateral order doctrine under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Applying the three requirements from *Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.*, the court found the district court’s ruling did not conclusively determine the disputed question, was not completely separate from the merits of the action as it required examining factual allegations regarding third-party content, and was effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment since Section 230 does not guarantee a right not to stand trial. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the litigation proceeds in the district court.

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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Avera McKennan in a race discrimination lawsuit brought by former employee Deborah A. Tobacco under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Reviewing de novo, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and determined that the employer articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Tobacco as part of a reduction in force to meet budgetary constraints. The court held that Tobacco failed to prove pretext because she could not establish a causal connection between alleged policy violations or incidents of racial animus and the decision-maker’s motive, nor did she show potential comparators were similarly situated in all relevant respects. Consequently, the district court’s judgment in favor of the employer 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-10

Docket: 1:11-cv-22858-DLG

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a federal habeas petition challenging a death sentence on the grounds that the petitioner is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment. Applying the deferential standard of review prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the court held that the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, *Atkins v. Virginia*, nor did it rest on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court explained that the state court properly evaluated the three requirements for intellectual disability—significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior, and onset before age eighteen—by considering expert testimony on IQ scores, standard error of measurement, and adaptive functioning across conceptual, social, and practical domains. The appellate court found the state court’s factual determinations were not objectively unreasonable given the record evidence, including testimony regarding potential malingering and the petitioner’s ability to function independently. Consequently, the judgment denying habeas relief remains in effect for the Hialeah case involved in this appeal.

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