Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fifth-circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, concluding that after reviewing counsel’s brief and the relevant record, the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. Consequently, counsel was excused from further responsibilities and the case was closed.

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit vacated the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction against Iowa House File 2677, which prohibits the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems in Iowa that lack FDA marketing authorization or premarket tobacco product application status. The court held that while the plaintiff coalition possessed Article III standing, it was not likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause preemption claim. Applying the presumption against preemption and analyzing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s (TCA) tripartite preemption framework, the court determined that Iowa’s law is expressly preserved under the TCA’s Savings Clause because it regulates the sale and distribution of tobacco products. Furthermore, the court found no obstacle preemption, reasoning that the state law mirrors federal requirements rather than conflicting with them, and that federal enforcement priorities do not preempt state laws exercising traditional police powers. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants BFJ of USA, LLC and its members, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in ruling that the CERCLA petroleum exclusion barred plaintiff Harris Investment Holdings’ claims as a matter of law. Under CERCLA, a defendant bears the burden of proving that released substances fall within the petroleum exclusion, which excludes unadulterated petroleum but not petroleum contaminated with non-petroleum hazardous substances. The appellate court determined that evidence of a leaking underground storage tank containing waste oil raised a genuine question of fact regarding whether the petroleum was contaminated with hazardous substances such as chromium, thereby preventing summary judgment on the CERCLA claims. Additionally, the court found that expert testimony establishing causation for state-law negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims survived summary judgment, noting that while the district court properly excluded certain late-disclosed portions of an expert declaration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), it should have reconsidered whether specific factual statements in that declaration constituted a proper supplementation under Rule 26(e)(1)(A). Consequently, the case is remanded for trial or further proceedings on both federal and state 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fifth-circuit denied the petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. The court held that the petitioner failed to raise a nonfrivolous issue regarding the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to apply earned time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), reasoning that an administrative order of removal is final upon issuance pursuant to *Riley v. Bondi* and 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(ii), (b)(5). Consequently, the petitioner made no showing that his Expedited Order of Removal was not final, rendering the underlying claim legally insufficient. The court also denied the petitioner’s motions for expedited consideration and immediate release.

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: 2026-07-30

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by an undocumented immigrant seeking release from detention pending removal proceedings. The court held that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), but rather falls under the discretionary-bond provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court’s decision rests on the statutory interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). While Section 1225(a)(1) deems aliens present in the interior without admission to be “applicants for admission,” Section 1225(b)(2)(A) imposes mandatory detention only on those who are also “seeking admission.” The court reasoned that “seeking admission” must be given its ordinary meaning, which requires an affirmative step to obtain lawful entry. Because the petitioner entered unlawfully and is inadmissible, he cannot actually seek or obtain admission; his pursuit of asylum and withholding of removal does not constitute seeking admission under the statute. Consequently, the legal fiction of being an “applicant for admission” does not extend to making him “seeking admission.” The court further found that the government’s interpretation would render Section 1226(c)’s specific mandatory detention provisions redundant and raise serious constitutional due process concerns by allowing detention without bond for individuals who have been found neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The practical consequence is that the district court’s denial of the habeas petition is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to issue the writ and dispose of the matter as law and justice require, effectively entitling the petitioner to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a).

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s cancellation of Weems Industries’ trademark registration for the color chartreuse on water hoses and its award of over three million dollars in attorneys’ fees to Teknor Apex Company. Regarding the trademark, the court applied the standard that a product feature is functional, and thus ineligible for trademark protection, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or affects its cost or quality. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the color chartreuse functional because Weems actively marketed the hoses’ high visibility as a safety benefit, which constitutes strong evidence of functionality under *TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.* The court rejected Weems’s argument that functionality requires an improvement in the operation of the goods, noting that increased safety affects the quality of the article. Regarding the attorneys’ fees, the court reviewed the district court’s determination for abuse of discretion under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which permits fee awards in “exceptional cases.” The court affirmed that the case was exceptional due to Weems’s lack of candor before the United States Patent and Trademark Office—specifically, concealing marketing materials that highlighted the safety benefits of the color to secure registration—and its unreasonable trial conduct, including frivolous evidentiary objections and false testimony. The court found no abuse of discretion in concluding these circumstances warranted a fee award because Weems’s misconduct allowed it to use the dubious registration as a sword against competitors, necessitating the litigation. The practical consequence is that Weems’s trademark registration for chartreuse on water hoses is canceled, its infringement claims are dismissed, and Teknor is awarded attorneys’ fees. The judgment of the district court 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and vacated the permanent injunction and award of attorney fees against Arkansas officials enforcing Act 372. Regarding Section 1, which criminalizes furnishing items “harmful to minors,” the court held that librarian and bookstore plaintiffs had standing and that their claims were ripe due to a credible threat of prosecution. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment overbreadth challenge because they failed to adduce evidence that third parties would be affected differently than themselves and did not provide an evidentiary record allowing for a comparison between unconstitutional applications and the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep. The court also rejected the void-for-vagueness challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment, finding that the statute’s terms are commonly understood and its dual scienter requirements alleviate concerns regarding fair notice or arbitrary enforcement. Regarding Section 5, which requires public libraries to adopt written policies for material selection and handling challenges, the court held that patrons lacked standing because their alleged injury was speculative; the statute merely mandates policy adoption without requiring specific restrictive actions like book segregation. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ challenges to both sections failed, and the lower court’s judgment was reversed.

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s application of a two-level offense enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) in a methamphetamine conspiracy case. The court applied de novo review to the guideline application and clear error review to factual findings, utilizing the standard that the enhancement applies if the weapon was present unless it is clearly improbable that it was connected with the offense. The court held that the government met its low burden by showing the firearm was found in a vehicle at the defendant’s home, which served as a meeting location for the conspiracy and where the defendant stored weapons for co-conspirators. The court reasoned that constructive possession includes dominion over premises and that firearms are known tools of narcotics dealing, making it not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the drug trade. The practical consequence is that the defendant’s conviction and sentence stand.

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: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed Donavan White Owl’s fifteen-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, rejecting his challenges to the denial of a sentencing guideline adjustment and the upward variance imposed by the district court. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying White Owl a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1 because White Owl denied involvement in the fire during his presentence interview, claimed he pled guilty only to escape jail, and accused his wife of lying, conduct inconsistent with genuine acceptance of responsibility. The court further ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying upward from the advisory guideline range based on facts not admitted in the plea agreement, finding sufficient indicia of reliability in trial testimony and FBI interview reports regarding White Owl’s motive and actions. Additionally, the court found no plain error in rejecting White Owl’s Sixth Amendment argument, noting that Supreme Court precedent permits sentencing judges to make factual findings that support an upward variance within statutory limits, and determined the sentence was not substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) given the seriousness of the offense and White Owl’s lack of remorse. The judgment of the district court 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a ten-month sentence followed by two years’ supervised release upon revocation of Celeste Allen Pardue’s supervised release. The court applied the standard that a district court has broad discretion in imposing revocation sentences and will affirm unless the sentence is above the statutory maximum or plainly unreasonable. Under this review, the court examined whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Regarding procedural reasonableness, the court held that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision by engaging with Pardue’s arguments regarding addiction and explaining why it declined her request for in-patient treatment based on her lack of accountability for multiple violations. The court noted that while the judge did not explicitly “tick through” each factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the explanation demonstrated consideration of the nature of the offense, history and characteristics, and deterrence. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court applied the presumption of reasonableness afforded to within-Guidelines-range sentences and concluded that Pardue failed to overcome this presumption because the district court stated an appropriate basis for the sentence imposed in light of the totality of the circumstances. The practical consequence is that the revocation judgment stands and oral argument was dispensed with.

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