Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The Federal Circuit affirmed the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Christopher Johnson’s complaint seeking military disability retirement backpay and benefits as untimely under the six-year statute of limitations in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The court held that Johnson’s claim accrued at the time of his August 1992 discharge from the Marine Corps, rendering his February 2024 filing well beyond the statutory period. The court applied the default accrual rule established in *Martinez v. United States*, which dictates that a Tucker Act claim for disability benefits accrues when the claimant is discharged without such benefits if an appropriate board has already denied entitlement prior to discharge. The Federal Circuit rejected Johnson’s arguments that subsequent administrative decisions by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) and an ad hoc Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) in 2017, 2018, and 2020 restarted the limitations period under the “reopening rule.” The court distinguished *Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers*, noting that the reopening rule applies to direct judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, not to original suits for money damages under the Tucker Act. Furthermore, the court held that the “half-a-legal-loaf” doctrine did not apply because Johnson was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit; since he could have sued immediately upon discharge, the limitations period began at that time rather than when the BCNR provided partial relief. The practical consequence is that Johnson’s claim for monetary relief related to his 1992 discharge is barred by the statute of limitations, and the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint 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: 2026-08-04

Docket: 4:25-cv-00169-RCC–BGM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Jevante Price’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. The court held that the vacatur of Price’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction did not warrant a reduction in his kidnapping conspiracy sentence because the terms were ordered to run concurrently, meaning the length of imprisonment remained unchanged. Furthermore, the court determined that Price was ineligible for First Step Act time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxvi) regardless of whether his underlying conviction qualified as a crime of violence. Consequently, relief was denied and the district court’s judgment was 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit dismissed the appeal based on a valid and enforceable appeal waiver contained in the defendant’s plea agreement. The court applied the standard that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. After independently reviewing the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio*, the court found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.

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: 2026-08-04

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Article 5.14(a) of Puerto Rico’s Law 20, which criminalizes the dissemination of false information during a governor-declared state of emergency. The court held that the provision violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it constitutes an impermissible content-based restriction on speech that fails to survive strict scrutiny. The court determined that Article 5.14(a) is content-based because it targets speech based on its veracity, requiring officials to examine the truthfulness of statements to enforce the law. The court rejected the government’s argument that knowingly false statements are categorically unprotected, distinguishing the statute from criminal defamation laws and noting that false speech generally merits First Amendment protection unless it falls within a narrow historical exception. Applying strict scrutiny, the court found that while protecting public safety during emergencies is a compelling interest, the statute was not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. The law lacked meaningful limiting features, such as requiring proof of actual harm or knowledge that harm was likely, and was overinclusive because it could criminalize jokes, satire, or fiction. Furthermore, the government failed to provide evidence that the statute was necessary or that less restrictive alternatives, such as counter-speech, would be ineffective. Consequently, the injunction barring enforcement of the law 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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 5:24-CV-03108-JWL)

The tenth-circuit denied the petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition with prejudice. The court applied the standard under *Slack v. McDaniel*, determining that reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the district court’s procedural rulings. The district court had found that all of the petitioner’s claims were barred by anticipatory or actual procedural default because they were either unexhausted in state court or dismissed under adequate and independent state procedural rules. The appellate court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for the defaults, as he did not present an independent ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the state courts to excuse his failure to raise claims there. Additionally, the court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception because his allegations of factual innocence were unsupported by new, reliable evidence in the record. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without a certificate of appealability.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 8:17-cr-00014-RAL-AAS-2

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the conviction of Alonso Pineda-Torres for conspiracy to commit drug smuggling under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b). The court held that Congress has the constitutional authority to punish this conduct, rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions lacked a sufficient nexus to the United States because they occurred solely in Colombia and international waters. The court applied a de novo standard of review to determine the constitutionality of the statute. It reasoned that while the Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10) authorizes Congress to punish felonies committed on the high seas, the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) permits legislation that is “reasonably adapted” to carrying out enumerated powers. The court found that prohibiting conspiracies to commit drug trafficking in international waters serves as a useful prophylactic against smuggling by targeting land-based actors who direct or finance such operations at their source. The court noted that this interpretation is consistent with historical precedent, including the Crimes Act of 1790, and distinguishes the case from prior rulings where Congress lacked authority over crimes not committed on the high seas. As a result of the affirmation, Pineda-Torres’s conviction stands and he remains subject to the sentence imposed by 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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

The first-circuit issued an erratum to its prior opinion in this immigration case, correcting a clerical error on page 6 by replacing the word “it” with “The IJ.” This administrative correction clarifies the reference to the Immigration Judge within the court’s stated basis for the decision.

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: 2026-08-03

The first-circuit issued an erratum to its opinion in this case, correcting minor typographical errors. Specifically, the court directed that the word “Onto” be replaced with “On to” on page 27, line 13, and that the word “of” be inserted between “much a” on page 32, line 10, and between “threshold materiality” on page 34, line 15. These corrections do not alter the substantive holding or disposition of the case.

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: 2026-08-03

The First Circuit dismissed the government’s appeal from an order continuing an administrative stay of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) termination and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court treated the district court’s July 31, 2026, order as an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 that the district court would dissolve the existing administrative stay if jurisdiction were returned to it. Consequently, the First Circuit declined to retain jurisdiction and ordered the mandate to enter forthwith, while noting that the district court must rule promptly on the underlying motion for relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705.

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: 2026-08-03

The first-circuit issued an errata sheet to correct a typographical error in its prior opinion. Specifically, the court directed that the word “perpetuated” on page 19, line 14 be replaced with “perpetrated.” This administrative correction does not alter the substantive holding or legal basis of the original decision.

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