Last Week in Federal Appeals (#77)
Appellate decisions from the week of March 2, 2026.
“Today’s decision shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction. A case raising novel legal questions and arousing strong views comes to this Court . . . . The ordinary appellate process has barely started. . . . The Court receives scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute. It does not hold oral argument or deliberate in conference, as regular procedures dictate. It considers the request on a short fuse—a matter of weeks. And then the Court grants relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute. The Court does all this even though the application of existing law to the case raises tricky questions, and so cries out for reflection and explanation. The Court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly.”
~ Justice Kagan, dissenting, Mirabelli v. Bonta
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Mirabelli v. Bonta
The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay of a permanent injunction. In this case, California enacted policies that prohibited schools from telling parents about their children’s gender transition unless the children consented. The Supreme Court ruled that, among other things, the parents were likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the policy violated their Free Exercise and Due Process Rights.
Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion.
Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented.
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that New Jersey Transit Corporation was not an “arm” of the State of New Jersey, and thus, not entitled to sovereign immunity. The court found that the Corporation was a separate legal entity that had traditional corporate powers.
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires appellate courts to use the “substantial evidence” standard to determine whether undisputed facts constitute persecution for those seeking asylum.
First Circuit
The City of Boston v. OptumRx, Inc.
The First Circuit held that a city had “actual knowledge” of an alleged public nuisance caused by pharmacy benefit managers’ opioid communications because the city “had ample means to discover the facts to support a claim” before the date that the statute of limitations began to run. The court therefore held that the city’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
The First Circuit held that a bankruptcy court does not automatically lose jurisdiction of adversary proceedings post-discharge. The court remanded the case and instructed the bankruptcy court to run a “case- and fact-specific inquiry” about whether its jurisdiction remained.
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Okechukwu Dimkpa
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The panel reasoned that, even though a Supreme Court opinion came out after his conviction that interpreted the scienter provision in § 841, the appellant procedurally defaulted on that issue by not raising the underlying argument before the conviction.
Natalie Thomas v. EOTech, LLC
The Fourth Circuit held that the statute of limitations period for filing Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims may not be shortened by prior agreement between the parties.
Fifth Circuit
United States v. Luis Francisco Corona-Montano
The Fifth Circuit held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not contain a scienter requirement for transporting unaccompanied minors. The district court therefore appropriately applied a four-level enhancement to the defendant’s sentence under the guidelines, even if the defendant did not know that one of the passengers in his car was a minor.
Sixth Circuit
Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB
The Sixth Circuit granted the appellant’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings finding that the National Labor Relations Board relied on a new standard (the Cemex standard adopted during the Biden administration) that upended decades of precedent. The panel determined that the Board abused its adjudicatory authority when it promulgated that standard.
Marquetta Williams v. City of Canton
The Sixth Circuit, in a narrow holding, affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity defense for a police officer defendant who shot and killed a man. The panel ruled that the officer may have violated clearly established law when he shot and killed a man who was firing gunshots into the air in his own backyard to celebrate New Year’s Day.
Seventh Circuit
Shareef Childs v Cheryl Webster
The Seventh Circuit held that requiring inmates to purchase their own religious items at de minimis costs does not place a substantial burden on free exercise of religion.
Eighth Circuit
United States v. Brad Wendt
The Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant police chief’s conviction under § 922(o) because he did not have fair notice that possessing a machine gun registered to his department was unlawful. The court held that the public authority exception under that statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant.
Ninth Circuit
United States v. Boylan
The Ninth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 1115, a statute concerned with accidents on ocean-going vessels, does not require the government to prove that a defendant committed “gross negligence.” Mere negligence is enough for a conviction.
Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Mikel Mims
The Eleventh Circuit held that a district court retains jurisdiction over restitution in a criminal case even after a defendant completes a probationary sentence. The district court had “inherent authority” to reorder the defendant to comply with a restitution order that the defendant did not previously comply with.
United States v. Michael Shane Ragland
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for further sentencing under the First Step Act. The court held that the Act applies to defendants who are resentenced after the Act was passed in 2018.
Note from the Editor: At long last, Appellate Happenings is back. Thank you all for your patience as I worked on a more sustainable model for the newsletter. As you might imagine, gathering the opinions for the week is not always the easiest project to accomplish alongside casework. But with thanks to Antonia (who is also returning) and our new contributors, we have lots of exciting plans in store for you. For now though, please enjoy our first newsletter back from hiatus! ~ Ben
Any opinions expressed here are our own. This article is not legal advice; if you have a legal issue, you should consult an attorney.
If you liked this article or have thoughts about it, please like or comment below (or email the editor at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings. This post is public so please share it.