Last Week in Federal Appeals #83
Appellate decisions from the week of April 13, 2026
“Here, Radford exceeded the scope of the seizure by immediately engaging in a criminal investigation unrelated to the traffic violation warranting the stop—obstruction of traffic by parking on a single-lane bridge. Initiating the stop, Radford first informed Martin and Jarvis that he was stopping them for parking on the single-lane bridge, and then he immediately asked about the presence of firearms. . . . . Radford’s questions were not reasonably related in scope to the purpose of the stop and were instead focused on investigating unrelated criminal activity. Those inquiries would have been lawful if they were conducted during the course of a diligently conducted stop, but that is not the case here because Radford abandoned the stop from the very beginning.”
~ Judge Benjamin, United States v. Martin
Decision Summaries
Supreme Court of the United States
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal officer removal statute allows parties to remove state court actions to federal court that allege claims against federal officers (or those acting under federal officers) “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Analyzing the “or relating to” language, the Supreme Court held that Chevron, a federal contractor, satisfied the federal officer removal statute because it “plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged conduct and the performance of its federal duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one.”
Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment. Justice Alito did not participate.
First Circuit
US v. Nieves-Diaz
The First Circuit, for the second time, vacated the sentence that the trial court imposed. The court found that the trial court committed a procedural error by not explaining its reasoning for the upward variance that it imposed upon the defendant’s sentence.
Third Circuit
Johnson & Johnson v. Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd
The Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and reiterated that plaintiffs can “rarely” prove irreparable harm in breach of contract cases.
Fourth Circuit
Christopher M. Cook v. Chapter 13 Trustee
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a bankruptcy action, which the district court dismissed under the bankruptcy doctrine of “equitable mootness.” The panel held that equitable mootness should be applied only in complex bankruptcy cases.
US v. Trent Russell
When the government suspected a hospital employee of posting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health information on Twitter, government agents interviewed the employee with the hospital CEO in the room. The employee moved to suppress his interview statements claiming they were not voluntary since he felt compelled to talk under a perceived threat of termination by the mere presence of the CEO. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and held that the presence of the CEO, without more, was not enough to show that the employee’s incriminating statements were involuntary.
Vaughn Gardner v. Todd Blanche
In an immigration case, the Fourth Circuit held that the petitioner was ineligible for a cancellation of his removal from the country due to criminal convictions because, while one the charges warranting removal did not result in a “conviction” under North Carolina law, it was a “conviction” under federal immigration law.
US v. Dennis Hernandez
In a matter of first impression, the Fourth Circuit held that an execution of a warrant of removal after the Executive Office for Immigration Review already issued a final order is not a “pending proceeding being had before” immigration review under 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
US v. Nathaniel Martin
The Fourth Circuit reversed a denial of a motion to suppress when a police officer almost immediately abandoned the purpose of his initial car stop and, without sufficient justification, prolonged the stop by investigating whether firearms or contraband were in the vehicle.
Kelly Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
The Fourth Circuit held that an employer’s bonus compensation program was not an ERISA-covered pension benefit plan. In so holding, the court gave lower courts six factors to analyze whether bonus plans are covered by ERISA.
Seventh Circuit
US v. Lennie Perry
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s mid-trial request for court-appointed counsel after the defendant went through five attorneys and waived his right to counsel twice and where, at the final waiver, the judge warned that the defendant would not be given another opportunity for court-appointed counsel.
Jane Doe 1, 8, and 9 v. Steven Sloan
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Section 1983 claims against government officers. Those officers, during the course of an investigation, gave a government IT employee sexually explicit images of minors so the employee could help with identifications. The harm occurred after the IT employee completed the identifications but kept the explicit images for personal possession and disseminated them. The Seventh Circuit found that despite the seriousness of the offense, “the Due Process Clause is not a vehicle for judges to fashion evidence-sharing protocols in child pornography cases.”
Female Athletes United v. Keith Ellison
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction where a group of female high school athletes sought to enjoin an all-state, transgender, biological male athlete from competing in girls’ softball. The Fourth Circuit aligned itself with several sister circuits when it held that a private plaintiff may only bring claims of intentional discrimination under Title IX. The claim that the female athletes pursued was not one for intentional discrimination.
Ninth Circuit
Abdollah Nia v. Bank of America, N.A.
The Ninth Circuit held that the liability shield provision of International Emergency Economic Powers Act shielded Bank of America from Section 1981 liability when it closed an Iranian’s account due to an internal but good faith error about the Iranian’s permanent residency status.
US v. Gonzalez-Reyes
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to dismiss a criminal charge of illegal reentry into the United States. The Defendant challenged his initial removal, arguing that his state rape conviction—the predicate offense for his initial removal—was not an “aggravated” offense. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and held that because the defendant committed an “aggravated felony,” he could not show that his removal was fundamentally unfair as required by Section 1326(d)(3).
Eleventh Circuit
Spirit Airlines, LLC v. Transportation Security Administration
Airlines must remit a security fee per-customer to TSA. The Eleventh Circuit held that airlines must also remit that security fee when a customer cancels a flight but does not utilize their flight credit within the required timeframe, and thus, allowing the airline to generate revenue.
Kevin Joyce v. Forest River, Inc., et al
The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida’s Lemon Law does not require a consumer to meet a certain mandatory presumption before being entitled to a refund.
D.C. Circuit
Jane Doe v. Todd Blanche
18 biological male, transgender women inmates sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their transfer from a female prison to a male prison. The trial court granted the injunction. The D.C. Circuit held that the federal courts do have authority to review such placements but vacated the injunction because the district court did not make any specific factual findings that the individual inmates might be subject to increased risks in a male prison.
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 Ben at breese@flannerygeorgalis.com or Antonia at agelorme@flannerygeorgalis.com) and consider sharing it with your friends and network.
Thank you for reading Appellate Happenings.
This post is public so feel free to share it.