Category Archives: Uncategorized

Plaintiffs Who Plead That Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Websites Captured Personally Identifying Information Alleged an Injury in Fact for Article III Standing Purposes, Holds Third Circuit

In In re BPS Direct, LLC; Cabela’s, LLC Wiretapping Litig., No. 23-3235 (3d Cir. May 11, 2026), the Third Circuit holds that customers whose allege that their visits to retail websites were surreptitiously captured by session replay code (SRC), which thereby saved their personally identifying information, plead a sufficient injury-in-fact under Article III standing toContinue reading “Plaintiffs Who Plead That Session Replay Code Embedded in Retail Websites Captured Personally Identifying Information Alleged an Injury in Fact for Article III Standing Purposes, Holds Third Circuit”

Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional

In Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-3050 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026), a divided panel (with a concurrence in the judgment and a dissent) holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which governs judicial review of orders of removal, is a limitation on relief rather than on federalContinue reading “Split Seventh Circuit Panel Holds That Government Waived Argument for Limitation on Injunctive Relief in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), Interpreting That Section as Non-Jurisdictional”

A Negligent Discovery Violation Is Not “Misconduct” to Support Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(3), Holds Second Circuit

In Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., No. 24-1510 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026), the Second Circuit affirms denial of a motion for relief from a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (b)(3), in a case where the plaintiff learned belatedly that the defendant failed to disclose several relevant emails duringContinue reading “A Negligent Discovery Violation Is Not “Misconduct” to Support Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(3), Holds Second Circuit”

Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 24-3983 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026) and Perez v. Guetschow, No. 25-1617 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026), two panels decide interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity decisions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the central issue is video evidence, per Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). In each case,Continue reading “Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Grants Mandamus to Order Venue Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Holding That District Court Erred in Relying on Court Congestion as a Controlling Factor

The Fifth Circuit has been the site of vexing and notorious venue battles, as parties jostle to forum shop – or avoid – districts in Texas and Louisiana. In In re Google, No. 25-40788 (5th Cir. April 7, 2026), a 2-1 panel holds that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying defendant Google,Continue reading “Split Fifth Circuit Panel Grants Mandamus to Order Venue Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Holding That District Court Erred in Relying on Court Congestion as a Controlling Factor”

Split Fourth Circuit Panel Holds That There Was No Injury Fairly Traceable to Maryland State Officials Under the Federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and Thus No Article III Standing by Servicemembers to Enforce the Act

In Rouse v. Fader, No. 25-1004 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026), a 2-1 panel of the Fourth Circuit holds that the plaintiffs—“three married couples, each with one spouse who was an active-duty servicemember”—lacked Article III standing to enforce the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3902, because no injury was fairly traceable to theContinue reading “Split Fourth Circuit Panel Holds That There Was No Injury Fairly Traceable to Maryland State Officials Under the Federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and Thus No Article III Standing by Servicemembers to Enforce the Act”

Fifth Circuit Clears Up Intracircuit Conflict, Holding That Video Recordings of Depositions Are Taxable as Costs Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920

In Clouse v. Southern Methodist Univ., No. 24-10860 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2026), the Fifth Circuit resolves a split among the circuit’s district courts by holding that ordering both video and printed depositions are chargeable as costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and  28 U.S.C. § 1920. The panel thus affirms a total $184,033.11Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Clears Up Intracircuit Conflict, Holding That Video Recordings of Depositions Are Taxable as Costs Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920”

Seventh Circuit Splits Over Whether to Vacate a District Court Order Against Federal Immigration Agencies Upon a Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2) Voluntary Motion to Dismiss

In Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25-3023 (7th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026) (per curiam), a Seventh Circuit panel issues a 2-1 decision ordering that, as part of granting the government’s voluntary dismissal of its appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the underlying order on appeal be vacated. The case arose from the surgeContinue reading “Seventh Circuit Splits Over Whether to Vacate a District Court Order Against Federal Immigration Agencies Upon a Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2) Voluntary Motion to Dismiss”

Second Amendment Claim Against State Court Judge Properly Dismissed for Lack of Adversity Under Article III, Holds Second Circuit

In Kellogg v. Nichols, No. 23-8093 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2026), the Second Circuit affirms dismissal of a gun-rights case filed against a state court judge who serves as a statutory firearms licensing officer, both on absolute immunity and Article III grounds. The plaintiffs sued “New York state court Judge Jonathan D. Nichols,” in hisContinue reading “Second Amendment Claim Against State Court Judge Properly Dismissed for Lack of Adversity Under Article III, Holds Second Circuit”

Sixth Circuit Reverses a District Court for Exercising Supplemental Jurisdiction and Granting Summary Judgment on a Novel Michigan State-Constitutional Claim

In Williams v. Addison Cmty. Schs., No. 25-1205 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2026), the Sixth Circuit issues a rare published opinion reversing a district court for exercising supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)), here over a Michigan state-law claim that raised issues of first impression. Plaintiff Williams was removed as President of the Addison CommunityContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Reverses a District Court for Exercising Supplemental Jurisdiction and Granting Summary Judgment on a Novel Michigan State-Constitutional Claim”