Case Summary:

United States v. Jddarrian Irons is a federal criminal appeal in which Jddarrian Christopher Irons, the defendant in the underlying prosecution, is challenging the judgment entered against him in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑12112, with oral argument held before that court on January 27, 2026.

Case Summary:

United States v. Alexander Alli is a federal criminal appeal in which Alexander Alli, the defendant in the underlying criminal case, is appealing his conviction and/or sentence in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, docket number 24‑11945, with oral argument held on January 27, 2026

Case Summary:

Rinat Akhmetshin v. William Browder is a defamation case in which lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin sued investor and activist William Browder, alleging that Browder falsely accused him of being a Russian intelligence operative and of involvement in hacking and other wrongdoing, and the court ultimately ruled in Browder’s favor, finding that Akhmetshin did not prove the statements were actionable defamation under the applicable standards.

Case Summary:

United States v. Gamble, No. 23‑2105, involves a federal criminal defendant, Michael Gamble, whose case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was argued on January 22, 2026. Before reaching the Third Circuit, Gamble was prosecuted in federal district court, where he faced charges arising out of federal criminal conduct, was convicted and sentenced, and then filed an appeal challenging aspects of his conviction and/or sentence, leading to the docketed appeal now before the court of appeals.

Case Summary:

Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church and two Houston coffee businesses, Antidote Coffee and Perk You Later, brought a First Amendment challenge to Texas gun‑trespass signage laws, arguing that the statutes force them to post large, highly specific handgun‑exclusion signs if they want to keep all guns off their private property, while only minimal signage is required to exclude other items or people. In the Southern District of Texas, they sued Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg and several local law‑enforcement officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, and during the case the court granted Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(1) motions by the defendants, dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint as futile before final judgment was entered and the case went up on appeal to the Fifth Circuit under docket number 23‑20165.

Case Summary:

Anash, Inc., doing business as Wyoming Valley Yeshiva, and Rabbi Shimon Hellinger filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Borough of Kingston and local officials, challenging the condemnation and zoning-related closure of two properties at 44 and 239 Pierce Street used for religious and educational activities, and alleging religious discrimination under RLUIPA and the First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process violations, and related state-law claims. In the district court, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the zoning and condemnation actions, but the court denied emergency relief and later denied the preliminary injunction, finding they had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, religious animus, or a due process violation, and noting that the Borough had given notice of violations, avenues for hearings and zoning relief, and opportunities to bring the properties into compliance. After these adverse rulings on injunctive relief, Anash, Inc. and Rabbi Hellinger appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the case is docketed as No. 25-1097, Anash Inc v. Borough Kingston, and was argued on January 22, 2026.

Case Summary:

In People v. Johnson (Docket No. 2-25-0165), the defendant was prosecuted in an Illinois trial court for driving under the influence of alcohol after an incident in which he was found slumped over in a vehicle at a gas pump, exhibiting multiple signs of impairment observed by responding officers. Before trial, the defense moved to suppress evidence arising from the stop and investigation, arguing that the police lacked sufficient justification, but the trial court denied the motion, and after a stipulated bench trial the court entered a judgment of conviction for DUI, which became the judgment now on review in the appeal argued on January 22, 2026, in the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District.

Case Summary:

The United States sued the State of Texas, the Governor, and state officials in federal district court to challenge Texas Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), a state law that creates new state crimes for unlawful entry and reentry by noncitizens and authorizes state officers and judges to arrest, prosecute, and order the removal of noncitizens based on immigration violations. The federal government alleged that S.B. 4 is preempted because Congress has given the federal government exclusive authority over immigration and because the Texas scheme conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act by creating a parallel state removal system and undermining federal discretion in enforcement and foreign relations. After the United States, several nonprofits, and El Paso County filed suit, the district court consolidated the challenges and entered a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of S.B. 4, holding that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the law is preempted by federal immigration law. Texas appealed, and in an earlier interlocutory ruling the Fifth Circuit panel (in No. 24‑50149) denied Texas’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction, concluding that Texas had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that the law interfered with the federal government’s exclusive power over entry, removal, and foreign relations. The case then proceeded in the Fifth Circuit under docket number 24‑50149, and on January 22, 2026, the court heard en banc oral argument in United States v. State of Texas to reconsider the panel’s approach to the injunction and the preemption and standing questions arising from S.B. 4.

Case Summary:

W.M.M. v. Trump is a habeas class-action challenge brought by Venezuelan detainees held in Texas after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) through a March 2025 presidential proclamation to detain and remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. After the Supreme Court ruled in related litigation that challenges to removal under the AEA must be filed in the districts of detention and that detainees must receive sufficient notice and opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal, W.M.M. and others filed in the Northern District of Texas, where emergency relief was initially sought but constrained by the district court’s schedule, prompting an emergency stay application in the Fifth Circuit and an administrative stay from the Supreme Court temporarily blocking removals. On remand, the Fifth Circuit panel later issued a 2–1 decision granting a preliminary injunction against removals under the AEA proclamation, finding the detainees faced irreparable harm and were likely to succeed on their claim that the AEA did not authorize the President’s use of the Act in the absence of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion”, while largely crediting the government’s updated notice against broader due process challenges; the government then sought and obtained en banc rehearing, setting the stage for the appeal identified as W.M.M. v. Trump

Case Summary:

Andre De Moya, a Washington, D.C.–area concert venue operator and bar owner, was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for his role in a multiyear bribery scheme involving a senior official at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue. Federal prosecutors alleged that De Moya and a co-defendant paid bribes to the tax official in exchange for erasing or reducing hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liabilities owed by their nightlife businesses, including a prominent concert venue. A federal jury found De Moya guilty of bribery, conspiracy, and wire-fraud offenses arising from that scheme, and he was later sentenced to a term of imprisonment. De Moya appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the case is docketed as No. 24‑3013, United States v. Andre De Moya, and oral argument has been heard before a panel of that court.