Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to a Guatemalan national and her minor daughter. The court applied the substantial evidence standard, holding that the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner established eligibility for any form of relief. Regarding asylum, the court found that credible death threats alone did not constitute past persecution because they were not acted upon and did not cause significant actual suffering or harm, and there was no objectively reasonable fear of future persecution given the family’s continued safety despite frequent threats. The court similarly affirmed the denial of CAT relief, finding no substantial evidence that the petitioner was likely to be tortured if returned to Guatemala. The petition for review was denied.

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: 4:24-cr-00012-RH-MAF-4

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Floyd Bostic’s convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aiding and abetting wire fraud, aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit money laundering, concealment of money laundering, engaging in monetary transactions involving money laundering, and aiding and abetting the operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business. The court applied plain error review because Bostic failed to make a sufficient objection at trial to preserve an abuse-of-discretion standard. The court acknowledged that the district court plainly erred by admitting FBI Special Agent Evan Hurley’s testimony that Bostic’s financial activity was indicative of his knowledge that funds were fraudulently obtained, as this constituted an impermissible opinion on the defendant’s mental state under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). However, the court held that this error did not affect Bostic’s substantial rights because sufficient uninfected evidence supported the requisite mental state, including testimony from co-conspirator Ronald Vargas regarding the “Promoter” and Bostic’s own trial testimony explaining his rationale for engaging in withdrawals and intra-account transfers. Consequently, the convictions remain 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: 2026-08-03

The tenth circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an information charging juvenile delinquency for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2), which prohibits juveniles from knowingly possessing a handgun. The court held that Congress possessed the authority to enact this provision under the Commerce Clause, rejecting the appellant’s argument that the statute exceeded federal power. Applying de novo review and the rational basis standard, the court determined that § 922(x)(2) is an essential part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme outlined in § 922(x) that directly and substantially affects interstate commerce by excluding juveniles from handgun markets. The court reasoned that Congress had a rational basis to conclude that this regulatory scheme would be undercut if the possession ban were excised, as allowing juvenile possession would facilitate greater participation in interstate handgun markets as buyers and sellers. Consequently, the district court’s ruling upholding the statute’s constitutionality stands, and the juvenile delinquency proceedings against the appellant continue.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:24-CV-02164-DDD-SBP)

The tenth-circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of environmental organizations’ Clean Air Act citizen suit against Suncor Energy, holding that the district court incorrectly applied the statute’s diligent prosecution bar. The court determined that the diligent prosecution bar under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(B) is a non-jurisdictional affirmative defense, not a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction. Applying a text-based analysis, the court established that the bar precludes a citizen suit only if three specific elements are met: (1) there is a present civil action in a judicial court (such as an ongoing consent decree) rather than merely administrative enforcement actions; (2) the standards or limitations being enforced in that judicial action are identical to those alleged in the citizen suit, excluding claims based on “substantially similar” but distinct regulatory requirements; and (3) the government is diligently prosecuting that specific action. The district court erred by applying the bar to claims based on administrative actions and by barring suits alleging standards not identical to those in the underlying consent decrees. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the district court to apply the correct legal standard to determine which claims, if any, are precluded.

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: 1:24-cv-01163-SEG

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the district court’s order dismissing claims against Eric Ehrenreich was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it did not end the litigation on the merits, as claims against other defendants remained pending. Furthermore, the court determined the order was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because any error could be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment without imperiling a substantial interest. The practical consequence is that the appellants must await a final judgment disposing of all remaining claims before appealing the dismissal of Ehrenreich.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:23-cv-01631-JLT-EPG

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s post-judgment order in Bailey’s civil rights action alleging constitutional violations by prison staff. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the underlying dismissal because Bailey failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Additionally, the court declined to consider the district court’s denial of Bailey’s motion for reconsideration because Bailey failed to address this issue in his opening brief, thereby abandoning it. The court also denied Bailey’s motion for judicial notice.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 8:23-cr-00063-DOC-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence as to issues covered by the defendant’s appeal waiver, following an independent review of the record that disclosed no basis for challenge. The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal regarding the enforceability of the appeal waiver because counsel filed a brief under *Anders v. California* identifying no non-frivolous arguments, and the defendant did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Consequently, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:24-cv-00118-DWL

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Salako’s employment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit because Salako failed to satisfy her burden of proving that such immunity did not apply to the defendants, who were sued in their official capacities as arms of the tribe. The appellate court further affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to file an amended complaint, finding that amendment would be futile given the jurisdictional bar. Additionally, the court affirmed the denials of Salako’s motions for sanctions and a case management conference, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying these requests under applicable standards of review. All pending requests were denied.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:23-cv-00132-TJC

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits. The court applied de novo review, reversing an administrative law judge’s decision only if it involved legal error or lacked substantial evidence. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s discounting of a counseling therapist’s opinion, which was inconsistent with her own treatment notes and other medical records. Additionally, the court found the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s subjective testimony, citing effective treatment of impairments, inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements regarding his use of a cane and attention span, contradictions with lay witness testimony, and inconsistent daily activities. The court rejected derivative arguments regarding the residual functional capacity assessment and declined to consider an argument based on *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo* due to forfeiture for lack of specificity in the briefing.

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.