Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The dc-circuit issued an opinion under seal that is not available to the public.

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: 2026-07-24

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for the use of sophisticated means in Eric Braziel’s conspiracy to commit wire fraud conviction. The court applied the clear error standard of review, finding that the district court’s determination was plausible given the record. Specifically, the court noted that after a fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loan application was denied, Braziel submitted documents under a fictitious business name, along with fraudulent tax and bank account records, for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. The court reasoned that these actions allowed the district court to infer an intentional effort to make the fraud more difficult to detect, consistent with prior Fifth Circuit precedent. The practical consequence is that Braziel’s sentence stands as 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake of the Woods County and its officials, holding that the county did not violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying the Audettes’ after-the-fact conditional use permit application. The court applied the standard for failure-to-accommodate claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i), determining that a public entity’s duty to accommodate arises only when it learns of the need for accommodation, and that the accommodation must be reasonable. The court reasoned that the Audettes failed to request a reasonable accommodation at the appropriate time because they constructed a concrete ramp without prior approval despite having knowledge of the permitting requirements and receiving specific instructions during a site visit. Because the Audettes did not seek permission for an alternative accommodation, such as the walkway allowed by county ordinance, before violating zoning laws, their subsequent request in the after-the-fact process—which sought to rescind disciplinary consequences rather than secure reasonable access—was not a valid accommodation request under the ADA. Additionally, the court rejected the Audettes’ disparate treatment claim, finding that board members’ comments during the permit hearing reflected concerns about the applicants’ failure to follow proper procedures and the environmental impact of their construction, rather than discriminatory animus toward Jennifer Audette’s disability. The practical consequence is that the county’s denial of the permit stands, and the Audettes remain subject to the restoration order requiring them to return their property to its original conditions.

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 District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

The dc-circuit affirmed the district court’s $812 million judgment in favor of shareholders who sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) for violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by implementing the “Net Worth Sweep” on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Collins v. Yellen* did not foreclose this contract claim, as the statutory bar to judicial review under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) prohibits only injunctive or declaratory relief that restrains the FHFA’s conservatorship powers, not damages for breach of contract. The court further determined that the implied covenant applied because the FHFA’s broad discretionary authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act did not eliminate the duty to act reasonably, and the Net Worth Sweep arbitrarily frustrated shareholders’ reasonable expectations by eliminating all future dividend potential. Regarding harm, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict based on the immediate drop in share value upon the announcement of the Sweep. The court also ruled that post-Third Amendment purchasers had contractual standing because the implied covenant claim inhered in the securities themselves and transferred with them under Delaware and Virginia law. Finally, the court rejected the cross-appeal seeking restitution or reliance damages, holding that rescission (restitution) was barred by § 4617(f) as it would interfere with the FHFA’s authority, and reliance damages were unavailable because they far exceeded ascertainable expectation damages under governing state law. The practical consequence is that the judgment stands, and the FHFA must pay the awarded damages without being required to unwind the shareholder agreements or alter its conservatorship powers.

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: 2026-07-24

Docket: 8:23-cv-02370-KKM

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s order disallowing three proofs of claim filed by Cloud 9 Properties, LLC. The court held that a creditor must demonstrate it has the right to enforce its claim at the time the proof of claim is filed. Applying de novo review and relying on Florida state law which governs the validity of claims in bankruptcy, the court determined that under Florida law, a party must be the owner or holder of a promissory note to foreclose on the associated mortgage. Because Cloud 9 failed to provide evidence that it owned the notes securing the debts when it filed its proofs of claim, and the opposing party’s objection was supported by substantial factual basis showing Cloud 9 did not acquire ownership until after the filing deadline, the claims were properly disallowed. The practical consequence is that the claims remain disallowed, meaning the properties sold free and clear of those liens, and the sale proceeds are not subject to distribution to Cloud 9 or its assignee, Bay United Holdings, LLC.

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: 2026-07-24

Docket: 2:23-cv-00024-RWS

The eleventh-circuit vacated the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint in this Second Amendment challenge to Georgia laws prohibiting individuals under age 21 from carrying firearms in public. The court held that the district court erred by relying on an intervening panel decision that had since been vacated en banc, and by failing to consider two subsequent significant legal developments: the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision in *National Rifle Association v. Bondi*, which applied a historical tradition analysis under *United States v. Rahimi* to uphold a similar age-based restriction on firearm purchases, and the Supreme Court’s decision in *Wolford v. Lopez*, which struck down a statute restricting handgun carry on private property open to the public due to a lack of historical analogues. The court remanded the case so that the district court can consider these intervening decisions in the first instance.

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: 2026-07-24

The first-circuit denied the defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal a district court order and final judgment that vacated actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to implement a presidential proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment with all H-1B visa petitions. The court applied the four-factor test from *Nken v. Holder* for emergency stays, focusing primarily on whether the defendants made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal. The court determined the defendants failed to meet this burden under the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition on agency actions taken in excess of statutory authority (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)). Relying on *Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co.*, the court held that Congress must clearly delegate authority for the executive to impose financial burdens characterized as fees or taxes. The court found that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) lacked the requisite clear statement authorizing such a payment, noting that Congress typically specifies fee imposition and fund usage explicitly in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the implementation actions were not “final agency action” subject to judicial review, citing First Circuit precedent that agency actions carrying out presidential directives are ordinarily reviewable under the APA. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment vacating the $100,000 H-1B payment requirement remains in effect while the appeal proceeds. The defendants must continue to operate without the enforced policy until the First Circuit issues a final decision on the merits.

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: 2026-07-24

Docket: 5:23-CR-00278-HE-13)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The court held that five of the seven issues raised on appeal were waived because the defendant failed to adequately brief them, did not object to the evidence at trial, or failed to provide a sufficient appellate record as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8) and Tenth Circuit Rule 10.4(B). Regarding the two preserved issues, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the denial of the motion to sever under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a), ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice outweighing the expense and inconvenience of separate trials. On the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the court applied a de novo standard, reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government to determine if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that testimony from co-defendants and witnesses establishing the defendant’s role as an employee who tended plants, transported marijuana, and interacted with buyers was sufficient to support the verdict. As a result of this decision, the judgment of the district court stands, and the defendant remains subject to his thirty-seven-month prison sentence and five years of supervised 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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-24

Docket: 2:24-cr-00018-RWS-AWH-1

The eleventh-circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing because the district court erroneously assigned six criminal history points for two prior sentences imposed more than fifteen years before the instant offense. The court applied U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e), which excludes prior sentences from the criminal history calculation unless they were imposed within fifteen years of the current offense or resulted in incarceration during that period. Because the government conceded error and the defendant was not incarcerated during the relevant fifteen-year window, the points should have been excluded. This error incorrectly increased the defendant’s criminal history category from IV to VI and raised the advisory guideline range from 121 to 151 months to 151 to 188 months. Since the district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the incorrect range, the error was not harmless.

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: 2026-07-24

Docket: 1:21-CV-00805-DDD-KAS)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Regina Drexler’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the Attorney General, the State Court Administrator, and various judicial defendants because they lack a sufficient enforcement connection to the challenged Colorado statutes, meaning the *Ex parte Young* exception to sovereign immunity does not apply. Regarding the remaining claims against the District Attorney for violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court ruled that Drexler lacked Article III standing because she failed to demonstrate a credible threat of future prosecution; specifically, the protection order did not restrict her speech, and the District Attorney had explicitly disavowed intent to prosecute her for protected First Amendment conduct. Consequently, all claims were dismissed without prejudice.

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