Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

Docket: 3:24-cv-05617-GJL

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to reverse and remand the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits for further proceedings, while also affirming the denial of the claimant’s request for reassignment to a different Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a remand because the ALJ erred by finding the claimant had transferable skills without first determining if he possessed any, and due to conflicts between medical opinions in the record. The court reasoned that under Ninth Circuit precedent, an agency’s legal error does not automatically justify an award of benefits; rather, the touchstone is the existence of a disability, and it was not clear from the record that the claimant was entitled to benefits on remand. Regarding the request for reassignment, the court applied the standard for disqualifying an ALJ, concluding that the statistics provided by the claimant failed to demonstrate “actual bias” required for disqualification under *Bunnell v. Barnhart*. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the district court’s order, and the claimant receives no immediate award of benefits.

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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 6:23-cv-01322-RBD-RMN

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief to Josiah Anthony Hadley, a Florida prisoner convicted of second-degree murder. The court addressed Hadley’s sole claim for which a certificate of appealability was granted: whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by denying his motion to suppress statements obtained in violation of *Miranda* rights. Applying the highly deferential standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the court held that the Florida trial court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent regarding custodial interrogation. The court rejected Hadley’s argument that he was in custody during two interviews on October 4, 2014, noting that while the situation was a “close call,” the state court’s determination that a reasonable person would have felt free to leave—given that Hadley was uncuffed, not arrested, and allowed to control his vehicle—was a fairminded application of the law. Regarding the October 8 interview, the court held that Hadley’s pre-custody invocation of his right to counsel did not require police to cease questioning, as there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent extending *Miranda* protections to non-custodial settings or anticipating interrogation before custody attaches. The court further clarified that the district court erroneously relied on *Stone v. Powell*, which bars Fourth Amendment habeas claims, but affirmed the denial of relief on alternative grounds that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Consequently, Hadley’s conviction and sentence 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The sixth-circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of defendants Chanel Logan and Khari Smith, but vacated the sentence of defendant Saruba Smith and remanded for resentencing. The court held that Logan’s 360-month sentence was reasonable, rejecting her claims that the district court relied on unreliable information regarding her criminal history, erroneously applied a two-level drug-premises enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), or imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence based on disparities with co-defendants. The court found the enhancement proper because Logan’s apartment contained substantial quantities of drugs and manufacturing equipment, indicating its primary use was for drug trafficking rather than mere incidental storage. Regarding Smith, the court held that sufficient evidence supported his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a phone to facilitate a drug offense, as he knowingly used his phone to connect an undercover buyer with Logan. The court also rejected Smith’s challenge to the denial of a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, finding he played a key role in planning and organizing the drug deal, and upheld the consecutive sentence as adequately explained by the district court. For Saruba, the court held that while her conviction for aiding and abetting was supported by sufficient evidence and any judicial bias or Rule 605 error was harmless, the district court committed plain error by failing to apply a mandatory two-level offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5) after granting her a mitigating-role adjustment under § 3B1.2.

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: 2026-07-29

The fifth-circuit denied the motion for authorization to file a successive § 2241 petition as unnecessary and vacated the district court’s transfer order. The court held that the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), which require appellate authorization for successive petitions, apply only to habeas actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and do not govern § 2241 petitions. Consequently, because § 2244(b) does not apply, the district court lacked authority to require such authorization, rendering its transfer of the case improper. The case was transferred back to the district court for further proceedings.

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: 2026-07-29

Docket: 1:25-cv-06326-TRJ-LRS

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying order denying the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was not final. The court held that the order did not dispose of any claims and therefore failed to meet the finality requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Additionally, the court determined the order was not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine because it is effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Consequently, all pending motions were 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 Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

Docket: 1:23-cv-02536)

The Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging that casino-hotel defendants and their algorithmic software provider conspired to fix hotel room prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a hub-and-spoke price-fixing scheme by alleging that the defendants used Cendyn’s AI-powered dynamic pricing software as a central hub to exchange non-public, real-time pricing and occupancy data, thereby facilitating a horizontal agreement among competitors. Applying the plausibility standard under *Twombly* and *Iqbal*, the court found that the complaint’s allegations of parallel conduct—specifically the synchronous increase in room rates despite declining occupancy—and “plus factors,” such as the defendants’ motive to recoup losses, actions contrary to their economic self-interest by maintaining high prices when they should have lowered them to attract casino patrons, and evidence of traditional conspiracy through data exchanges, were sufficient to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal an illegal agreement. 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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Jeffrey Jones’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, denying him eligibility for time credits under the First Step Act. The court held that there is no ambiguity or irreconcilable conflict between 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii), which govern prisoner ineligibility for time credits. The court reasoned that the provisions address different courses of conduct: subsection (lxvi) excludes prisoners convicted under specific fentanyl quantity thresholds, while subsection (lxviii) applies to those who acted as organizers or supervisors in fentanyl offenses. Because Jones’s conviction fell squarely within the exclusionary criteria of subsection (lxvi), he was statutorily ineligible for time credits regardless of whether the sentencing court made a leadership finding required by subsection (lxviii). Consequently, the Bureau of Prisons’ determination that Jones was ineligible was upheld, and his petition 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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The sixth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Jarvis Clayborn’s motion to suppress post-Miranda statements obtained during a custodial interrogation following an initial, unwarned questioning session. The court applied the five-factor test from *Missouri v. Seibert* and Sixth Circuit precedent (*United States v. Woolridge*) to determine whether Clayborn had a “genuine choice” to remain silent after receiving midstream Miranda warnings. The court held that the statements were admissible because, although the initial questioning was complete, three hours elapsed between the two rounds of interrogation, the second round was conducted by a different officer at a new location (the police station), and the second officer did not reference or rely on the prior unwarned confession to elicit the subsequent admission. The court further clarified that under Sixth Circuit law, the admissibility of such statements is determined by an objective test focusing on the suspect’s perspective, rendering the officers’ intent or any alleged departmental policy regarding two-step interrogations irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. Consequently, Clayborn’s conviction for possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) 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 First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-29

The first-circuit reversed the district court’s order postponing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ethiopia. The court held that under *Mullin v. Doe*, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the TPS statute’s judicial-review bar applies to all non-constitutional claims challenging the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination regarding the termination of a TPS designation. Because the plaintiffs’ challenge was based solely on such non-constitutional claims, the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the postponement order. The practical consequence is that the government’s request for summary reversal is granted, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with *Mullin*.

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: 2026-07-29

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding a jury verdict that found Mark Siffin liable for fraud and awarding $40 million in damages. The court held that the economic-loss rule did not bar the plaintiff’s claim, rejecting Siffin’s argument to the contrary, and determined that his remaining challenges regarding the denial of motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, the admission of evidence, and post-judgment motions failed to warrant reversal. Consequently, the $40 million verdict stands.

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