Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review and denied the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court’s stated basis was the petitioner’s failure to file the required Federal Circuit Form 10: Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) Statement Concerning Discrimination, pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 15(c)(3). As a practical consequence, each party shall bear its own costs.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board due to the petitioner’s failure to prosecute in accordance with court rules. The court’s stated basis was the petitioner’s failure to pay the required docketing fee under Federal Circuit Rule 52(d) and failure to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3). As a result, the petition for review is dismissed without prejudice to filing a new petition if the procedural requirements are met.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit summarily affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The court applied the standard that summary affirmance is appropriate when the lower court’s decision is “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” The appellate court held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over claims directed at parties other than the United States, such as individual IRS agents and state officials, because such tort-based claims fall outside the court’s limited jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Additionally, the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for breach of contract, as he did not plead facts establishing contractual privity with the United States or any other cognizable claim within the court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiff’s request for relief was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Veterans Court’s judgment was not final. The court stated that James filed a motion for a three-judge panel decision with the Veterans Court, which rendered the underlying order non-final for purposes of judicial review under established precedent. Consequently, the Federal Circuit lacked authority to review the case or remand it for the Veterans Court to consider the pending motion. The practical consequence is that the appeal is dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Veterans Court to rule on the panel motion first, which may establish entitlement to equitable tolling before any further appellate review can occur.

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: 2026-07-29

The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Aurora on both Joliet Avionics’ equal protection and breach of contract claims. Regarding the equal protection “class-of-one” claim, the court held that such a theory is inapplicable to government contracting disputes because they involve discretionary decision-making based on subjective, individualized assessments similar to those in public employment contexts, as established by *Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture*. The court reasoned that contract negotiations and enforcement decisions inherently require discretion, meaning differential treatment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent class-based discrimination or malicious application of law enforcement powers. On the breach of contract claim, the court rejected the argument that federal grant assurances and the City’s Minimum Standards policy were implicitly incorporated into the lease as enforceable contractual terms. The court explained that the implied incorporation doctrine applies only to existing statutes and laws, not to contractual agreements like FAA grant assurances or vague, aspirational policy language that does not impose concrete legal obligations on the City. Consequently, Joliet Avionics could not enforce its competitor’s lease terms or compel strict enforcement of airport policies against other tenants, and the judgment for the City 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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. The court’s stated basis was the petitioner’s failure to pay the required docketing fee under Federal Circuit Rule 52(d), file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3), and file the required Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance form. As a result, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon compliance with these procedural requirements.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. The court’s stated basis was the petitioner’s failure to pay the required docketing fee under Federal Circuit Rule 52(d), file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3), and file the required Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance form. As a result, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon compliance with these procedural requirements.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The federal-circuit dismissed the petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. The court’s stated basis was the petitioner’s failure to pay the required docketing fee under Federal Circuit Rule 52(d), file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 15(c)(3), and file the required Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance form. As a result, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to filing a new petition upon compliance with these procedural requirements.

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 Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) upon agreement by the parties. The court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

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: 2026-07-29

The sixth-circuit remanded the appeal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to determine in the first instance whether a Deferred Resignation Program Agreement (DRPA) entered into by the appellant extinguished her claims and rendered the case moot. The court applied the Article III mootness doctrine, which requires a live case or controversy, noting that a settlement agreement can deprive a court of jurisdiction if it completely eradicates the effects of the alleged violation. However, because the parties disputed material facts regarding the validity of the release provision in the DRPA—specifically whether Russell entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily given her alleged anxiety and PTSD—the appellate court could not resolve the jurisdictional issue itself. Consequently, the district court was tasked with making necessary factual findings to decide if the agreement is enforceable and if it mooted Russell’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

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