Weekly Roundup of Federal Appellate Court Rulings (Non-Exhaustive)

Friends, the procedural and legal obstacles to holding federal officers accountable in court for violating people’s rights are real and significant. If you want a sense of them, this compact flowchart puts it all on display.

New on the Bound By Oath podcast: We take on Texas, recounting the Pullman abstention and Justice Frankfurter’s introduction of federalism into federal courts.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: We go stateless in Seattle, visiting the CHOP zone and examining the history of coerced Native American reeducation.

1. Unpublished D.C. Circuit: We’re not claiming these two IRS workers necessarily fabricated evidence; we’re saying there may be no constitutional remedy available if they did.
2. In Massachusetts, at least 181 times, state police secretly record phone conversations without warrants and then press charges against those involved. The recordings are kept from prosecutors (and from defendants). The district court suggested this could breach the Constitution. The First Circuit observed that although the police have not admitted stopping this practice, the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of being secretly recorded and charged again in the future, leaving them without standing to seek an injunction.
3. As the COVID-19 surge eased, the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands resumed in-person hearings with some limits. In one case, drug traffickers known as “Bogus” and “Crumbull” challenged their convictions, arguing that excluding observers from parts of the opening and later segments of the trial violated their right to a public trial. The government contends the exclusions were de minimis because the trial could still be viewed remotely in an overflow room. The Third Circuit found a rights violation, but since neither defendant properly objected, they still received a fair trial. Convictions upheld.
4. Third Circuit (unpublished): Hey district court, you got this one right, but maybe skip the puns in your next ruling about two youngsters who were killed in a tractor-trailer crash.
5. Exoneration Watch, Baltimore edition: Two brothers are imprisoned for two decades for a murder they did not commit. The convictions rested partly on a statement from a 13-year-old with a learning disability who fingered the brothers only because detectives pounded the table in front of him, a statement he recanted at trial. Before the brothers are released, the witness dies. They sue the detectives. Can the court admit the decedent’s earlier testimony? District court: Inadmissible hearsay. Fourth Circuit: It was gathered long ago for a similar purpose to what it would be used for now. A jury must hear it.
6. So, you might suppose a case about whether the fixed-fee model used by fractional-share jet companies (aircraft time-sharing) falls under a 7.5% “ticket tax” would be exceedingly dull. Yet, credit to Chief Judge Sutton, the story becomes a compelling account of the IRS pressuring an entire industry, imposing a $39 million judgment on one firm, and losing unanimously in the Sixth Circuit. In a concurrence, it’s noted that the nation’s historical preference for taxpayers in tax matters has quietly shifted toward a new, less taxpayer-friendly interpretation.
7. Exoneration Watch, Detroit edition: Two men are convicted of murder largely on questionable evidence. This includes a jailhouse informant who claimed to hear one of them confess, but years later disclosed that he never actually met either defendant and that his testimony was dictated by a detective. The men are freed after nearly 20 years and sue the detectives. District court: Much of the case can proceed. Detectives: Fine, we’ll appeal. Sixth Circuit: It’s best not to raise arguments in reply briefs. Appeal partly dismissed and partly affirmed.
8. Madison, Wisconsin: Police hearing loud bangs and spotting a drunken man believed to own firearms enter a home. SWAT surrounds the residence. The man does not respond, and after a five-hour stalemate there are no more gunfire-like sounds. They enter, and foam bullets are fired at him even as he comes downstairs empty-handed and amid conflicting commands. (No shell casings found; a jury later acquits him of felon-in-possession.) Seventh Circuit: A jury could find constitutional violations here, but qualified immunity applies. Concurrence states that the day has come when the doctrine’s protection nearly eclipses the Constitution itself.
9. Early 2025 saw a sweep of grant terminations by three federal agencies following Executive Orders from the President. Six UC system researchers filed a class action, and the district court blocked the terminations. Ninth Circuit: About half-right. The district court properly blocked terminations tied to DEI-related EO directives, but the unexplained terminations should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims.
10. Tenth Circuit: Echoing Chiles v. Salazar—holding that a state ban on therapy intended to alter same-sex attraction or transgender expression is a viewpoint-based restriction on speech—we remand to apply strict scrutiny. A dissent argues that, since the law clearly fails strict scrutiny, it would be prudent to strike it down now to save everyone time.
11. Southern Company Services, Inc. employs a single trick to lessen pension obligations: calculating them using life expectancy figures from 1951. Eleventh Circuit: Why not go all the way back to 1789? Because the actuarial assumptions are unreasonable and violate ERISA.
12. Two DeKalb County, Georgia officers investigating a stolen vehicle knock on a home’s front door, enter when it opens. They go upstairs and find a man in bed who throws a phone at them. One officer fires about six shots, killing the man, who was unarmed. The officer was fired and later accepted a plea deal for involuntary manslaughter. The man’s family sues for Fourth Amendment violations. The officer asserts qualified immunity and pursues the loss in the Eleventh Circuit. Family contends the issues are factual and should be resolved at trial. Eleventh Circuit (unpublished): The issues are legal, so we will decide them in the ordinary course. File your brief.
13. In en banc developments, the Third Circuit, by a 6–5 vote, will not revisit its ruling on Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist. The government detained Khalil and began deportation proceedings in response to his advocacy, raising questions about how the First Amendment applies to lawful permanent residents. The non-en banc disposition means Khalil must complete the removal process and cannot challenge his detention via habeas corpus.
14. And in additional en banc news, the Fourth Circuit will revisit its decision that federal law preempts Maryland’s and West Virginia’s attempts to regulate how drug manufacturers distribute Medicaid-covered medications.

“Get on the fucking ground!” Who has standing to challenge ICE’s habit of storming private property, disregarding No Trespassing signs, tackling, shackling, and then extending detentions by refusing to accept REAL ID or other proof of citizenship? The Southern District of Alabama has found that IJ client Leo Venegas—detained violently three times in the past year—does have standing. Stay tuned for the court’s ruling on injunctive relief.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig contends that super PACs are destroying America. That stance sits uneasily with IJ Senior Attorney Paul Sherman, who helped litigate SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the case that created super PACs. According to Sherman—and, frankly, according to us—limitations on super PACs curtail the range of messages voters can weigh before casting ballots. Which side is right? We have our preferences, but if you want to judge for yourself, consider watching Lessig and Sherman debate on So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, hosted by our friends at FIRE.