Advertise on podcast: Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of Appeals

Case Summary: Gemini said In the case of Legacy Re, Ltd. v. 401 Properties Limited Partnership (Docket No. 1-24-1341), which was argued before the Illinois Appellate Court, First District on February 10, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: The litigation originates from a complex commercial foreclosure action involving a $15 million commercial property located at 401 S. LaSalle St. in Chicago. The dispute involves two separate mortgage notes issued in 2009: a $7.9 million note held by Bridgeview Bank Group (BBG) and a $3.2 million subordinate note originally held by Fortuna Stream LP. The petitioners, Legacy Re, Ltd. and Rock Solid Gelt Limited, are partial assignees of the Fortuna note and initiated foreclosure proceedings after the borrower, 401 Properties Limited Partnership, defaulted on the debt. A central factual issue in the case is the "merger doctrine," which the trial court applied after finding that the same individuals controlled both the debtor partnership and the entity that later acquired the senior BBG mortgage. The trial court previously ruled that because the same principals (Leon Greenblatt, Andrew Jahelka, and Richard Nichols) sat on both sides of the transaction as creditor and debtor, the senior mortgage was effectively extinguished. The current appeal, docketed as 1-24-1341, follows a long procedural history involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor that were dismissed for being filed in "bad faith" to delay the foreclosure. The factual record on appeal includes challenges to the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of Rock Solid Gelt Limited over its share of the mortgage proceeds. During the oral arguments on February 10, 2026, the appellate panel examined whether the trial court erred in its factual finding that a "double recovery" would occur if the mortgage debts were not cancelled through the merger doctrine.

Case Summary: In the case of Vargison v. Paula's Choice, LLC (Docket No. 25-2452), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 9, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows: The case is a putative class action brought by consumers alleging that the skincare company, Paula's Choice, falsely advertised its products as "cruelty-free" and "never tested on animals." The plaintiffs contend that these representations were deceptive because the company sold its products in mainland China, where animal testing was legally mandated for foreign cosmetics during the class period. A significant factual development occurred when Paula's Choice updated its website's Terms of Use in March 2023 to include a mandatory arbitration clause and a class action waiver. The company moved to compel arbitration for several named plaintiffs, arguing that any purchases made after the updated terms were posted constituted assent to the arbitration agreement. The district court granted the motion for certain plaintiffs who made purchases after the motion to compel was filed, finding they had received sufficient notice through the litigation itself. The primary issue on appeal involves Plaintiff Samantha Simmons, for whom the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that her specific purchase timeline did not establish clear assent to the new terms. The appellate court is reviewing whether the website's design provided "reasonably conspicuous notice" of the arbitration clause to prevent consumers from being "clawed back" into individual arbitration for claims that accrued before the terms were updated. During the oral arguments on February 9, 2026, the panel in Seattle focused on the sufficiency of the website's hyperlink placement and whether the company's "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreements met the Ninth Circuit's standards for enforceability.

Case Summary: The case involves a criminal appeal by the defendant, Isaac Tekola, following a conviction and sentencing in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendant was charged and subsequently convicted for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, a violation of federal narcotics laws. In September 2024, the district court imposed a sentence of 105 months of imprisonment (approximately 8.75 years) based on the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's prior criminal history. The factual basis for the underlying conviction centered on a law enforcement operation that resulted in the seizure of a significant quantity of narcotics attributed to the defendant. The current appeal, heard in Pasadena, California, primarily challenges the reasonableness and legality of the 105-month sentence imposed by the trial judge. A key point of contention in the appellate record is whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, specifically regarding enhancements for the defendant's role in the offense or the specific types of controlled substances found. The defense argues that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the defendant’s personal history and characteristics, which they claim warranted a downward variance. During the oral arguments on February 9, 2026, the panel examined whether the district court abused its discretion by prioritizing the punitive aspects of the sentence over the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

Case Summary: In SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD (Docket No. 25-5367), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 6, 2026, the case involves a high-profile challenge to the Department of Defense's designation of the world's largest drone manufacturer as a "Chinese military company." The factual record centers on the Pentagon's decision to place DJI on the "Section 1260H List," a designation that identifies entities allegedly supporting the Chinese military and blocks them from securing federal contracts. In the underlying proceedings, the district court issued a split factual finding, rejecting the DOD's claims that DJI was owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party but ultimately upholding the "military company" label based on DJI's status as a "National Enterprise Technology Center" in China and the "substantial dual-use applications" of its drone technology in modern warfare. On appeal, the primary factual dispute is whether these general industrial designations and the potential for third-party military misuse constitute sufficient evidence of a "military-civil fusion" connection under the Administrative Procedure Act, or if the DOD's listing was an arbitrary and capricious decision that ignored DJI's internal policies prohibiting combat use.

Case Summary: In Kelvin Nolen v. Steven Ford (Docket No. 25-1370), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 5, 2026, the case pertains to a civil rights action involving allegations of police misconduct and the scope of qualified immunity. The factual record centers on a confrontation between Kelvin Nolen and Steven Ford, an officer acting in an official capacity, during which Nolen alleges his constitutional rights were violated through the use of excessive force or an unlawful seizure. In the proceedings at the district court level, the court examined whether Officer Ford’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances or if they violated "clearly established" law, ultimately granting a ruling that prompted Nolen’s appeal. Before the Sixth Circuit, the primary factual dispute involves the specific sequence of events during the encounter and whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to overcome the officer's defense of qualified immunity and allow the case to proceed to a jury trial.

Case Summary: In Ethan Ennes v. Presque Isle County MI (Docket No. 25-1389), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim brought by a student with physical and cognitive disabilities against a county sheriff’s deputy and the county itself. The factual record stems from a 2021 incident in a special education classroom where the student, then eighteen years old, experienced a violent outburst that resulted in a physical confrontation with a school safety officer. During the struggle, the officer subdued and handcuffed the student, an action the plaintiff later alleged constituted excessive force and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the use of force was objectively reasonable given the student's aggressive behavior and the risk of injury to others in the classroom. On appeal, the central factual dispute is whether the degree of force used was proportional to the threat posed by a student with known cognitive impairments and whether the county can be held liable for a failure to properly train officers for such interactions

Case Summary: In Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC (Docket No. 24-2178), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a complex patent dispute following a rare split decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The factual record centers on several patents held by Wildseed Mobile relating to mobile advertising and user interface technologies, which Wildseed claimed were infringed by Google’s YouTube platform and Android advertising services. In the underlying administrative proceedings, Google successfully challenged the validity of these patents, leading the PTAB to issue a final written decision that invalidated key claims as obvious over prior art. However, the PTAB’s decision was notably non-unanimous, featuring a rare dissent from an administrative patent judge who argued that certain unique aspects of Wildseed’s "time-shifted" advertising innovations were not properly accounted for in the majority’s obviousness analysis. On appeal, the primary factual and legal dispute focuses on whether the PTAB correctly applied the standards for novelty and non-obviousness and whether the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Case Summary: In Alignment Healthcare Inc. v. HHS (Docket No. 25-5239), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 2, 2026, Alignment Healthcare appealed a lower court ruling regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) "Star Ratings" program. The factual record focuses on CMS's use of the Tukey Outlier Rule to set quality thresholds and allegations that the agency ignored language barriers and survey reliability issues for Spanish-speaking enrollees. While the district court ordered a recalculation for one specific Arizona plan due to misprocessed member appeals, it upheld the broader statistical methodology, a finding that Alignment is now challenging at the appellate level to secure potentially billions in withheld bonus payments. In Exafer Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation (Docket No. 24-2296), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the dispute involves networking technology used in Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform. The case reached the Federal Circuit after a district court in the Western District of Texas excluded Exafer’s damages expert for using unaccused products as a royalty base and subsequently granted summary judgment of "no damages" for Microsoft. The central factual issue on appeal is whether technical evidence of "saved CPU cycles" can independently support a reasonable royalty award in the absence of a surviving expert damages model.

Case Summary: The case originated from a class-action lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s use of pretextual traffic stops and warrantless arrests during immigration enforcement operations in the Chicago area. A 2022 consent decree resulting from the litigation required Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to follow specific protocols for warrantless arrests, including documenting a "likelihood of escape" and providing individualized probable cause. In early 2025, plaintiffs alleged that ICE resumed making "collateral" warrantless arrests and conducting pretextual stops in violation of the existing settlement agreement. The factual record includes evidence from "Operation Midway Blitz," during which plaintiffs claim ICE agents carried blank administrative warrants and filled them out only after detaining individuals to bypass the decree’s restrictions. Following these allegations, a district court found that 22 out of 26 tested claimant cases involved arrests that violated both the consent decree and federal statutory requirements. In October 2025, the district court extended the expiration of the consent decree to February 2, 2026, as a remedy for the government's documented non-compliance. The current appeal focuses on a November 2025 district court order that mandated the release of several hundred detainees who were allegedly arrested in violation of the decree’s protections. During the oral arguments on February 3, 2026, the court examined whether the government’s use of administrative warrants in the field effectively invalidated the protections negotiated in the original settlement.

Case Summary: In the case of Ryan v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Docket No. 24-1814), the petitioner, a veteran, is appealing a denial of service-connected disability benefits originally issued by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The core factual dispute involves whether the veteran’s medical condition was directly caused or aggravated by toxic exposures encountered during their period of active military service. The petitioner alleges that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to fulfill its statutory duty to assist by neglecting to secure specific military personnel records that documented the veteran's proximity to environmental hazards. A central point of the factual record is a conflict between a VA-contracted medical examiner, who found no link to service, and a private medical specialist, who provided a nexus letter supporting the veteran’s claim. The petitioner contends that the VA’s medical examination was factually inadequate because the examiner did not review the veteran’s complete service treatment file before rendering an opinion. The case also examines whether the veteran’s service locations and dates qualify for presumptive service connection under the specific criteria established by the PACT Act. Following the oral arguments held on February 2, 2026, the court is now reviewing whether the lower tribunal’s reliance on the VA medical opinion constituted a "clear and unmistakable error" based on the evidence provided.

Case Summary: In Alignment Healthcare Inc. v. HHS (Docket No. 25-5239), argued before the D.C. Circuit on February 2, 2026, Alignment Healthcare challenged the methodology used by CMS to determine Medicare Advantage "Star Ratings." The crux of the dispute centers on the Tukey Outlier Rule, which Alignment argues is an arbitrary statistical method that unfairly lowers quality scores by deleting valid data points, thereby depriving insurers of significant federal bonus payments. While the District Court previously granted a partial win regarding a specific Arizona plan's rating, it upheld the broader use of the Tukey rule. During the appellate oral arguments, the panel focused on whether CMS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and if the agency failed to account for language barriers in patient surveys. A reversal could trigger a massive recalculation of ratings and bonus payments across the entire Medicare Advantage industry.

Case Summary: Victor Palencia Gomez v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. is a personal‑injury, human‑rights–related appeal arising out of the long‑running multidistrict litigation over Chiquita’s alleged support for Colombian paramilitary groups, in which a group of Colombian plaintiffs including Victor Palencia Gomez seek to uphold a Rule 54(b) final judgment entered in their favor against Chiquita in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, now on review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under docket number 24‑13770, with oral argument held before that court on January 30, 2026.

Case Summary: United States v. Tommie Haney is a federal criminal appeal in which Tommie L. Haney is challenging the judgment entered against him in the United States Court of Appeals under docket number 25‑1302, with oral argument held on January 30, 2026. At the trial level, Haney was prosecuted in the Western District of Wisconsin for participating as a local leader in a methamphetamine and cocaine trafficking organization centered in the Wausau area, and he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine and 500 grams of cocaine. He worked with out‑of‑state suppliers, arranged bulk drug purchases, helped set drug prices, recruited others, and personally distributed significant quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine over multiple dates in 2022 and 2023. The district court sentenced him to 14 years in federal prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release, which is the judgment that now underlies his current appeal.

Case Summary: Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation is a federal civil‑rights and due‑process appeal brought by former RIOC President and CEO Susan G. Rosenthal challenging the dismissal of her lawsuit against RIOC and state officials in the United States Court of Appeals under docket number 25‑1667, following oral argument on January 30, 2026. In the underlying federal case in the Southern District of New York (No. 1:23‑cv‑09660, Judge Dale E. Ho), Rosenthal alleged that her June 2020 termination as RIOC President/CEO—officially justified by accusations that she had used offensive, “salacious” and racially charged language—was in fact retaliatory and politically motivated, tied to her efforts to raise infrastructure and safety concerns, and that she was publicly branded a racist without a meaningful chance to clear her name. She asserted a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due‑process “stigma‑plus” claim, contending that the State of New York and RIOC violated her constitutional rights by publicly disseminating allegedly false reasons for her firing and denying her a name‑clearing hearing, and she further argued that prior state‑court Article 78 and related proceedings did not give her adequate process. The defendants (RIOC and associated state officials) moved to dismiss primarily on res judicata and preclusion grounds, maintaining that Rosenthal had already litigated or could have litigated these issues in earlier New York state‑court proceedings (an Article 78 and a plenary state action) which ended in final judgments against her, and that federal courts must give those state judgments full faith and credit. The district court agreed, holding that New York’s transactional approach to res judicata barred her federal due‑process claims because they arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as her prior state cases; the court also held that Article 78 and related procedures provided constitutionally adequate process, and therefore dismissed her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Rosenthal’s present appeal challenges that dismissal, arguing that her federal due‑process claim is not precluded by the prior state litigation and that she never received a meaningful, constitutionally sufficient opportunity to clear her name after being publicly accused of misconduct and terminated from her public‑sector leadership role.

Case Summary: iCare Child Development Center LLC v. Alethea Cicero‑Brown is a civil appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in which iCare Child Development Center LLC and a co‑plaintiff are challenging an adverse judgment entered against them in their federal civil rights and related claims against Alethea Cicero‑Brown and other defendants, under docket number 24‑14186, with oral argument held before that court in Atlanta on January 30, 2026.