Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the non-diverse defendant, Pennsylvania Hospital, was not fraudulently joined. The court established that under federal law and the precedent of *Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc.*, fraudulent joinder is limited to two specific situations: where a plaintiff makes false allegations regarding jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all factual and legal issues in the plaintiff’s favor. The court rejected the district court’s novel theory that fraudulent joinder could be found based on a plaintiff’s subjective intent or lack of good faith effort to prosecute the claim, noting that such an inquiry into litigation strategy and discovery activity is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the statutory framework governing diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the district court to recognize the absence of complete diversity due to the presence of the non-diverse hospital defendant.

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: 2026-07-28

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Leonard Higgins’ conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that Higgins’ constitutional challenges to the statute were foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, specifically citing United States v. Cunningham for the holding that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional and United States v. Jackson for rejecting as-applied challenges to the same provision. As a result, the district court’s imposition of a 120-month prison sentence and three years of supervised release 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The Fifth Circuit denied Olamide Bello’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal as frivolous. The court determined that Bello’s § 2241 petition, which challenged trial and sentencing errors regarding wire fraud and money laundering convictions, must be construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because only the sentencing court in the Eastern District of Texas has jurisdiction over such motions, Bello was required to satisfy the saving clause of § 2255(e) by demonstrating that unusual circumstances made it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court. The court found that Bello failed to raise a non-frivolous argument supporting this showing. Additionally, the court rejected his contention that the district court should have transferred the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, noting that because the dismissal was without prejudice, he may raise his challenges by filing a § 2255 motion in the proper district. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of a non-frivolous issue, and Bello was warned that future repetitive or frivolous filings may result in sanctions.

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: 2026-07-28

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court improperly expanded the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. The court stated that under established precedent and Supreme Court authority, fraudulent joinder is limited to two situations: where a plaintiff makes false allegations regarding jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all facts and law in the plaintiff’s favor. The appellate court ruled that a plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate a real or good faith intent to pursue claims against a non-diverse defendant, based on litigation conduct such as delayed discovery or verbal representations regarding appeals, is not a valid basis for finding fraudulent joinder. Consequently, the cases are 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 Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s 48-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. The court held that there was no plain error in the district court’s failure to adequately explain the sentence, noting the lengthy sentencing colloquy and fact-specific reasons provided for the variance. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance based on the defendant’s criminal history and the statutory goals of promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, and affording adequate deterrence. The sentence was found to be well below the statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court ruled that the doctrine of fraudulent joinder cannot be established by a finding that a plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real or good faith intent to pursue claims against a non-diverse defendant through their litigation conduct, such as delayed discovery or perfunctory depositions. The court clarified that fraudulent joinder is limited to two specific situations: where the plaintiff has lied about jurisdictional facts, or where the plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all issues of fact and law in the plaintiff’s favor. Because the district court relied on an impermissible inquiry into the plaintiffs’ subjective intent and litigation strategy rather than these established standards, its determination of fraudulent joinder was legally erroneous. The cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether removal is permissible under the forum-defendant rule for plaintiffs who are citizens of states other than Pennsylvania.

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: 2026-07-28

The sixth circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke Christopher Clough’s supervised release for violating Tennessee’s sex-offender registration laws. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that Clough violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-203(a)(1) by failing to register a new primary residence within 48 hours after living at an apartment for two weeks, which satisfied the statutory definition of a primary residence requiring five consecutive days of residency under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-202(12). The court rejected Clough’s arguments that legal misunderstandings by the parties or insufficient evidence undermined the finding, ruling that any legal errors were harmless because the factual finding of two weeks of residency clearly established a violation regardless of the specific legal definitions discussed at the hearing. Applying a clear-error standard to the factual findings, the court determined that substantial evidence, including testimony from the apartment owner and corroborating physical evidence, supported the conclusion that Clough resided at the location for the requisite period and knowingly concealed his living arrangements in violation of his supervised release conditions. As a result, Clough’s supervised release remains revoked, and he must serve the additional prison term and supervised release 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 Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-28

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Roberto Antoine Darden’s motion to amend his Section 2255 petition, construing it as an unauthorized successive habeas motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction because Darden failed to obtain prefiling authorization. The court applied 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) and 2255(h), relying on *McRae* and *Bixby v. Stirling* to hold that postjudgment motions seeking to revisit merits denials or present new claims must be treated as successive petitions. Additionally, the court construed Darden’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which it denied because the claims did not meet the statutory standards under § 2255(h). The court also denied Darden’s pro se motion for appointment of counsel.

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: 2026-07-28

The seventh-circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the cases to state court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the non-diverse defendant, Pennsylvania Hospital, was not fraudulently joined. The court applied the established standard for fraudulent joinder, which permits removal only in two situations: where the plaintiff has lied about jurisdictional facts or where the plaintiff has no chance of success against the non-diverse defendant after resolving all issues of fact and law in the plaintiff’s favor. The court reasoned that the district court erred by expanding this doctrine to include a subjective inquiry into whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a “real intention in good faith” to prosecute the action, based on their litigation conduct such as the timing of depositions and statements regarding appeals. The court held that such an inquiry is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the principle that federal diversity jurisdiction must be construed narrowly to respect state court authority and plaintiff choice of forum. Consequently, the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, requiring the district court to recognize that the presence of the non-diverse hospital defendant prevents removal under the doctrine of complete diversity.

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: 2026-07-28

The eighth-circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The court held that the district court properly excluded testimony and refused to instruct the jury on the statutory affirmative defense under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(c) because the defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the required elements. Applying a plain meaning analysis derived from the Bail Reform Act, the court defined “uncontrollable circumstances” as events that actually prevent compliance, rather than those that merely discourage it. The court found the defendant’s testimony regarding alleged harassment and threats insufficient to show he was physically prevented from registering for 632 days or that he complied as soon as such circumstances ceased. Consequently, the conviction stands and the defendant remains subject to his sentence.

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