In Pen American Center, Inc. v. Bergosh, No. 25-13298 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2026), a 2-1 panel holds that school board members could be compelled to testify about why they determined to remove certain titles from the school library, over a legislative-privilege objection. Judge William Pryor dissents. Plaintiffs (including a free-speech advocacy group, parents inContinue reading “Split Eleventh Circuit Panel Holds That Local School Board’s Decisions to Remove Specific Books from the School Library Are Not Covered by Legislative Privilege”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Texas Statute That Caps Supersedeas Bonds at $25 Million Does Not Apply in Federal Court, Holds 2-1 Fifth Circuit Panel
In Civelli v. Mulacek, No. 26-20183 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2026) (per curiam), a 2-1 panel holds in a diversity case where a jury awarded more than $210 million that the Texas state-law cap on supersedeas bonds at $25 million does not apply in federal court, either by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 69Continue reading “Texas Statute That Caps Supersedeas Bonds at $25 Million Does Not Apply in Federal Court, Holds 2-1 Fifth Circuit Panel”
District Court Erred Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) in Conforming Pleadings to Trial Evidence to Allow an Unpled Claim of Retaliation to Go to the Jury, First Circuit Holds
In DiFronzo v. City of Somerville, No. 25-1210 (1st Cir. Sept. 21, 2026), the First Circuit reverses in part a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a First Amendment retaliation case, holding that one of the plaintiff’s theories at trial—that he was placed on forced leave after being reinstated—was neither pled nor consented toContinue reading “District Court Erred Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) in Conforming Pleadings to Trial Evidence to Allow an Unpled Claim of Retaliation to Go to the Jury, First Circuit Holds”
Eleventh Circuit Holds That It Is Not an Abuse of Discretion for District Court to Retain Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Some, But Not All, State-Law Claims After Plaintiff Abandons the Federal-Law Claims
In Mueller v. Walmart Corp., No. 23-12854 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), the Eleventh Circuit rejects a per se rule that a district court abuses its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over some, but not all, state-law claims after the principal federal law claims are dismissed (after the plaintiff abandonedContinue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That It Is Not an Abuse of Discretion for District Court to Retain Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Some, But Not All, State-Law Claims After Plaintiff Abandons the Federal-Law Claims”
Fifth Circuit Finds Appellate Jurisdiction and Holds That a State Anti-SLAPP Law Does Not Apply in Federal Court, Widening Circuit Splits on Both Issues
In Sahs v. Loyola Univ. New Orleans, No. 25-30263 (5th Cir. Sept. 11, 2026), a Fifth Circuit panel repudiates prior dicta from a 2016 decision and holds that Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP law is a procedural law that, under Erie principles, does not apply in federal court. In a separate opinion, dubitante, one panelist challenges the panel’sContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Finds Appellate Jurisdiction and Holds That a State Anti-SLAPP Law Does Not Apply in Federal Court, Widening Circuit Splits on Both Issues”
Tenth Circuit Holds That a Defense Presentation of Plaintiff’s “Cop-Watch” Social Media Posts at Trial Was Unduly Prejudicial Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, Warranting a New Trial
In Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 25-1235 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), the Tenth Circuit holds that cross-examining a plaintiff for about her “cop-watching” social media videos, in which she’s shown in police and security guard “encounters unrelated to the arrest at issue” in the case, was unduly prejudicial to the plaintiff underContinue reading “Tenth Circuit Holds That a Defense Presentation of Plaintiff’s “Cop-Watch” Social Media Posts at Trial Was Unduly Prejudicial Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, Warranting a New Trial”
Ninth Circuit Holds That A Federal Court May Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over a State Law Claim Even Where the Federal Claim is a Permissive Counterclaim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b)
In Zunun Aero, Inc. v. The Boeing Co., No. 24-5212 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026), on a petition for panel rehearing, the Ninth Circuit holds that a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), even where the federal-law claim is a permissive counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P.Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Holds That A Federal Court May Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over a State Law Claim Even Where the Federal Claim is a Permissive Counterclaim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b)”
D.C. Circuit Cuts Pro Se Litigants Some (But Not Unlimited) Slack on Filing a Late Notice of Appeal Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)
In Rudometkin v. Driscoll, No. 25-5033 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 24, 2026), the D.C. Circuit considers its jurisdiction over two pro se notices of appeal filed beyond the 30- or 60-day deadline. It holds that “if a pro se notice of appeal can reasonably be read as recognizing that the appeal is late, providing reasons forContinue reading “D.C. Circuit Cuts Pro Se Litigants Some (But Not Unlimited) Slack on Filing a Late Notice of Appeal Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)”
Seventh Circuit Cleans Up Intra-Circuit Split of Authority on Standard of Appellate Review of Orders Denying Arbitration
In Moore v Club Exploria, LLC, No. 25-2721 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026), the Seventh Circuit grapples with a divide in the case law about whether district court orders denying arbitration are reviewed deferentially or de novo. The court concludes that clear-error review applies unless the reviewing the order “requires us to elaborate on thisContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Cleans Up Intra-Circuit Split of Authority on Standard of Appellate Review of Orders Denying Arbitration”
Discovery Order Related to an Immunity Defense Was Not a Collateral Order Subject to an Interlocutory Appeal, Holds D.C. Circuit
The D.C. Circuit holds in Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Org., 24-7135 (D.C. Aug. 14, 2026), that while an interlocutory right of appeal arises from denial of immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) under the collateral-order doctrine, there is no corresponding right of appeal for a defendant from an order allowing jurisdictional discovery.Continue reading “Discovery Order Related to an Immunity Defense Was Not a Collateral Order Subject to an Interlocutory Appeal, Holds D.C. Circuit”
