Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus Powell. Trenton Powell was convicted of federal child-exploitation offenses involving sexual abuse images. The district court found that three charged photographs were taken inside his home and ordered his interest in the home forfeited to the government. This appeal concerns that property order, not his convictions. Criminal forfeiture takes property as part of a criminal sentence, rather than compensating a victim. Title Eighteen, Section Twenty-two Fifty-three covers property used to commit or promote specified offenses. The required legal connection between the property and the crimes is called a nexus. Powell's lawyer will argue that taking handheld-phone pictures indoors does not sufficiently connect the house itself to the offenses, and that uncharged abuse cannot substitute for that link. The government will maintain that the home's privacy and its role in bringing the victim there helped facilitate the charged offenses. United States v. Trenton Powell (No. 25-3792) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-3792.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3792&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 5, 2025, Doc. 198; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290-5.pdf Criminal forfeiture statute — 18 U.S.C. § 2253: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2253 Forfeiture procedure and third-party claims — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32.2 Excessive Fines Clause — United States v. Bajakajian, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/

The Ninth Circuit hears Gumusyazici versus the United States. She was a passenger in a car driven by her sister on a reservation road. The car skidded toward a utility pole near a curve. Her sister steered away, and the car left the road and rolled over, seriously injuring her. She sued over allegedly unsafe road design, including the absence of a guardrail. The road was maintained by a tribe under a federal transportation agreement. The district court ruled for the government without a trial, treating design decisions as protected and finding insufficient evidence that negligence caused the crash. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows certain negligence suits against the United States. Its discretionary-function exception protects discretionary choices that can involve public-policy balancing, even when discretion is abused. Her representatives will argue that this was an ordinary engineering-safety problem, not protected policymaking. They will also distinguish causing the skid from failing to limit her injuries. The government will contend that these road-design choices involve balancing safety, cost and tribal community values. Acker Gumusyazici v. United States (No. 25-4580) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-4580.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4580&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Facts and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 27, 2025, Doc. 42; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324-0.pdf Federal Tort Claims Act — 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346 Discretionary-function exception — 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680 Tribal transportation design factors — 25 C.F.R. § 170.455: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/170.455

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus American Horse. American Horse was prosecuted in Montana on sexual-abuse charges after two girls reported abuse. This appeal concerns the remedy for late disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. That includes evidence that can undermine a witness's credibility. A continuance postpones a trial to give more preparation time. The lawyers will debate when that is an adequate remedy, and when prosecutorial misconduct calls for dismissing the indictment instead. Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge latitude to choose among legally permissible remedies. United States v. American Horse (No. 25-5736) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-5736.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5736&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background — D. Montana CR23-63-GF-BMM, February14,2025 suppression order; confirms the prosecution, not the disclosure ruling at issue here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063-0.pdf Additional prosecution background — U.S. Attorney, April10,2025; government account: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/federal-jury-convicts-south-dakota-man-sexually-abusing-two-victims-fort-belknap-indian Favorable material evidence — Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S.83,87 (1963), primary judicial text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/ Witness credibility evidence — Giglio v. United States, 405U.S.150,153-154 (1972), primary judicial text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/ Ninth Circuit disclosure and remedy principles — United States v. Bundy, 968F.3d1019 (2020), pages21-24 and48-51; not this appeal outcome: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/06/18-10287.pdf Ninth Circuit remedy principles — United States v. Chapman, 524F.3d1073 (2008), pages18-22; not this appeal outcome: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/05/06/0610316.pdf

The D.C. Circuit hears Al Moumin versus the Republic of Iraq. Al Moumin is a former Iraqi environment minister. She says Iraq stopped paying her pension. She alleges that Nouri al-Maliki, then Iraq's senior vice president, later hired her to provide consulting services from the United States. Instead of a salary, she says, he promised to restore her pension. She says she did the work for more than a year but was never paid. She sued Iraq, which invokes sovereign immunity: a foreign state's general protection from being sued in American courts. The district court dismissed her standalone pension claim but let her consulting claim survive an initial motion to dismiss. That was not a finding that the agreement existed or that Iraq owed her money. Iraq will argue that this was personal political work and that al-Maliki lacked authority to bind the government. Al Moumin will contend it was government consulting covered by the commercial-activity exception to immunity. She will also ask the court to revive her separate pension claim. Mishkat Al Moumin v. Republic of Iraq (No. 25-7153) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-7153.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and ruling under review — D.D.C. 22-cv-2267, September 10, 2025 opinion; primary judicial text mirrored by FindLaw, not this appeal outcome: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/117693895.html Former environment-minister role — June 9, 2010 House hearing, PDF pages 59 and 65; biographical corroboration only: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56887/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg56887.pdf Foreign sovereign immunity — 28 U.S.C. §1604: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1604 Commercial-activity exception — 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605 Limits on pendent appellate review — Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35, 50–51 (1995); general law, not this case outcome: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1636.ZO.html D.C. Circuit pendent-review principles — Kilburn, 376 F.3d 1123 (2004), Part V; general law, not this case outcome: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/376/376.F3d.1123.03-7117.html

The Ninth Circuit hears Nicholas Severns' challenge to evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Tribal officers stopped a rental car for speeding in Browning, on Montana's Blackfeet Reservation. Severns was the passenger, and neither occupant had a valid driver's license. Officers checked their identities and warrants, called county law enforcement, and used a drug-detection dog. The investigation uncovered fentanyl. Severns asked the district court to keep the evidence out, saying the officers had unlawfully prolonged the stop. The judge rejected that request, finding that the officers acted reasonably. This appeal brings together two Supreme Court decisions: Cooley, addressing tribal officers' authority over non-Indians, and Rodriguez, limiting how long a traffic stop may last. Severns will argue that waiting about fifteen minutes to contact county officers created extra time for an unrelated drug investigation. The government will respond that routine identification and warrant checks were still underway, so there was no unlawful extension. United States v. Severns (No. 25-7217) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-7217.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7217&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background and ruling under review — D. Montana CR 24-89-GF-BMM, June 11, 2025 suppression order, primary judicial text mirrored by CaseMine; not this appeal outcome: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/684b8ea84fd8ac5bd8c39bcc Additional case background — U.S. Attorney's July 16, 2025 account; police narrative attributed to government court filings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/spokane-man-pleads-guilty-drug-charges

The D.C. Circuit hears the government's appeal in American Historical Association versus Donald Trump. The dispute began when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional. The White House then issued new records-preservation guidance based on that view. The American Historical Association, American Oversight and other groups sued, arguing that the new approach threatened the preservation of work emails, texts and other official records needed for research and accountability. Under the Act, covered records belong to the United States, with duties to preserve them and procedures for disposal and later access. The district court entered a preliminary injunction—a temporary order—requiring several White House offices and officials to follow the Act rather than the new guidance. The government will argue that mandatory preservation and later disclosure intrude on presidential control and confidential advice. The groups will defend the law as a valid safeguard for the historical record and continuity between administrations. A central question is whether objections to particular provisions justify rejecting the entire Act. American Historical Association v. Donald Trump (No. 26-5185) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5185.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and preliminary injunction — D.D.C. 26-cv-1169 and 26-cv-1402, Document 24, May 20, 2026; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169-0.pdf Procedural posture — June 30, 2026 district order pausing merits proceedings, not the preliminary injunction: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169-1.pdf Presidential Records Act — federal ownership, 44 U.S.C. § 2202: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2202 Presidential Records Act — preservation, disposal and custody, 44 U.S.C. § 2203: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2203

The D.C. Circuit hears Michael and David Sztrom versus the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC alleged David helped his father access client information and execute trades while Michael was not associated with a registered advisory firm. They settled the fraud case without admitting liability. The SEC then began an internal follow-on proceeding seeking industry bans. The Sztroms filed a separate lawsuit challenging that process, but the district court dismissed it. It rejected some constitutional claims and required others to follow the agency-review route. While their appeal was underway, the SEC issued orders barring them from specified roles in the securities industry. Mootness asks whether a live dispute remains in which a court can give effective relief. Wholly collateral means separate from the enforcement issues the agency is deciding. That is one factor in deciding whether a separate district-court suit is allowed. Their constitutional challenge distinguishes Article Three’s federal judicial power from the Seventh Amendment’s civil-jury protection. A public-rights exception allows some matters to be decided initially by agencies. In SEC versus Jarkesy, the Supreme Court required a jury when the SEC sought civil penalties for securities fraud. That ruling did not decide this professional-ban dispute. The Sztroms will argue these sanctions belong in an independent federal court; the Commission will defend its administrative process. Michael and David Sztrom v. SEC (No. 26-5008) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5008.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and district-court dismissal — Sztrom v. SEC, D.D.C. 24-cv-3548, Document 21, January 8, 2026: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv03548/275920/21/0.pdf?ts=1767950835 Original fraud allegations, not an admission of liability — SEC Litigation Release 25010, January 19, 2021: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25010 Intervening agency bars — SEC Release IA-7010, September 21, 2026; not the outcome of this court appeal; David may apply for reentry: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2026/ia-7010.pdf Mootness and effective relief — Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172–175 (2013), majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347 Continuing live controversy — Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91–93 (2013), majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-982 SEC fraud penalties, civil juries and public rights — SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf Wholly collateral and the route to court — Axon Enterprise v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), majority sections II–III: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-86

The D.C. Circuit hears Holland versus Blanche, about payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The claimants include September Eleventh survivors and victims’ families. Some say the Fund wrongly classified them as family members rather than victims, reducing their compensation. Another group obtained judgments after an application deadline and then had those judgments backdated. The Fund still treated their claims as late, excluding them from certain payments. The lawyers call those backdated orders nunc pro tunc judgments. The dispute includes catch-up payments for claimants previously excluded from this Fund because they had received awards from a separate September Eleventh compensation program. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Congress had barred judicial review of the Special Master’s compensation decisions. The Special Master is the official who administers the Fund. The claimants will argue that courts can still review underlying legal questions, including classifications and the treatment of backdated judgments. The government will argue that these are compensation decisions Congress made unreviewable. Joseph Holland v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-5373) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5373.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Facts, allegations and ruling being appealed — Holland v. Bondi, D.D.C. 24-cv-2687, Document 27, September 18, 2025; not the outcome of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv02687/272921/27/0.pdf?ts=1758286377 Fund administration, compensation and judicial-review provision — 34 U.S.C. §20144(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144

The D.C. Circuit hears a dispute between ocean carrier Hamburg and its customer, OJ Commerce. During the pandemic shipping crunch, OJC complained that Hamburg was not carrying the agreed volume under their year-long contract. After OJC threatened to complain to the Federal Maritime Commission, Hamburg stopped negotiating a renewal. Hamburg will point to continued spot-market shipping: individual shipments priced at prevailing market rates rather than an annual contract. The Commission found unlawful retaliation and refusal to deal, and awarded about seventeen point six million dollars, including additional damages. Reparations means money awarded for injury under the Shipping Act. Hamburg will challenge the Commission’s authority and its damages award. OJC will seek more compensation, challenging the number of containers and shipping costs used to estimate its losses. The Commission will defend its authority and calculations. The unit FFE means one forty-foot shipping-container equivalent. Hamburg Süd v. FMC (No. 25-1156) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1156.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Facts and prior agency ruling — OJ Commerce v. Hamburg Süd, FMC Docket 21-11, August 27, 2024; 8 F.M.C.2d 438–501, PDF pages 453–516; not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.fmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/8-F.M.C.2d.pdf Service contracts and breach remedy — 46 U.S.C. §40502(c), (f): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/40502 Reparations and additional awards — 46 U.S.C. §41305: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/41305 Carrier prohibitions — 46 U.S.C. §41104; 2022 amendment notes reproduce former (a)(3) applicable to 2021 conduct: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/41104 Federal judicial protections — Constitution, Article III, National Archives transcript: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Civil jury protection — Seventh Amendment, National Archives transcript: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript Agency adjudication and public rights — SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), actual majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf Issue exhaustion — Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83 (2021); definition, not a ruling on this shipping appeal: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1442_971e.pdf Remittitur and new-trial option — Hetzel v. Prince William County, 523 U.S. 208 (1998): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-523/pdf/USREPORTS-523-208.pdf Conditional reduction of a jury award — Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 482–486 (1935): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-293/pdf/USREPORTS-293-474.pdf FFE container unit — carrier’s technical definition: https://www.maersk.com/de-de/support/faqs/feu-and-ffe-mean

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears the related Kalkat and Diamond K orchard-sale appeals. The debtors sought to refinance loans secured by their properties, with orchard sales as a fallback. Creditors pressed to sell the properties and recover their money. The proposed plan used an independent sales officer to oversee bidding, while leaving room to refinance instead. These appeals focus on the evidence of the buyers' good faith. You will also hear about credit bidding: a secured creditor uses the debt it is owed toward buying the collateral, rather than paying that amount in cash. Bankruptcy Code section three-sixty-three M generally protects the validity of a sale to a good-faith buyer unless the sale authorization and the sale itself were stayed pending appeal. A stay is a court order putting the transaction on hold. That makes the buyers' good faith important: the panel must consider what the record actually establishes, not simply whether an auction took place. In re Kalkat/Diamond K, LLC (No. 26-1015) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1015.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1015&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and related appeals EC-26-1015 through 1021, 1044 and 1045 — official BAP calendar, October 15, 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Case background and refinancing proposal — June 26, 2025 pre-hearing materials, PDF pages 12–23; not a final signed ruling: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0626_1000_746S_2025.pdf Refinancing, proposed bidding procedures and sales officer — August 7, 2025 pre-hearing materials, PDF pages 53–56; not the later sale order: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0807_1030_746S_2025.pdf Later sale-motion identity — December 18, 2025 hearing calendar, final PDF page; not a merits decision: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/1218_1100_454S_2025.pdf Credit bidding and good-faith sale protection — 11 U.S.C. §363(k), (m): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/363 Scope of sale protection — MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform, 598 U.S. 288 (2023); general law, not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r14_3e04.pdf

The Ninth Circuit hears Kelly McCandless's appeal from an apartment-construction fraud case in Idaho. He and two partners planned to build a property with bank financing; he could earn an ownership share by completing the construction. Prosecutors said he inflated subcontractor bills and used unauthorized signatures to draw overpayments from the loan, keeping the difference. A jury convicted him of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The question is whether misusing the subcontractors' identities was central to the fraud, or simply incidental to overbilling. A lien can secure a contractor's claim against property for unpaid work; a lien waiver gives up that protection for the work it covers. The second issue is restitution: payment to compensate victims for their losses. McCandless will argue that the ownership interest he gave up should reduce the amount owed. The district judge rejected that credit, finding he never earned the interest because he had not finished the project. USA v. McCandless (No. 24-4105) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/24-4105.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-4105&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Background and restitution ruling — District of Idaho Doc.123, July 29, 2025; prior district-court order, not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_22-cr-00032/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_22-cr-00032-2.pdf Trial background — U.S. Attorney report, July 3, 2024; prosecution account of prior proceedings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-id/pr/rexburg-man-convicted-wire-fraud-and-aggravated-identity-theft-sentenced-more-5-years Aggravated identity theft — 18 U.S.C. § 1028A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A Identity use at the crux of the crime — Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/599us1r34_p86b.pdf Victim restitution — 18 U.S.C. § 3663A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3663A Construction liens — Idaho Code § 45-501: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title45/T45CH5/SECT45-501/

The Ninth Circuit hears James Kirby King's appeal from a federal criminal case in Montana. The prosecution involved allegations of sexual abuse and child exploitation on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and elsewhere in Montana. King was convicted after a bench trial, meaning a trial before a judge rather than a jury. Before trial, the district court rejected his claim that tribal sovereignty prevented federal prosecutors from bringing the first twenty counts. King will argue that tribal sovereignty requires giving the tribal justice system the first opportunity to prosecute. The government will defend federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act and other federal criminal laws. The Major Crimes Act authorizes federal prosecution of specified serious crimes by Native Americans in Indian country. The Supreme Court upheld that authority in Kagama, so the discussion also concerns what a lower court can do with binding Supreme Court precedent. Rule thirty-three allows a new trial if the interest of justice requires it. Section twenty-two fifty-five offers a separate challenge to an unlawful federal conviction or sentence, including claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel. USA v. King (No. 25-5972) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-5972.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5972&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Indictment background and jurisdiction ruling — district court Doc.77, August 19, 2024; pretrial order, not this appeal’s decision: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00098/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00098-0.pdf Trial background — U.S. Attorney report, September 23, 2025; prosecution account of prior proceedings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/billings-man-sentenced-more-24-years-prison-multiple-sex-crimes-spanning-approximately Major Crimes Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1153: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1153 Federal criminal authority — United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/375/ New trial — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33 Collateral challenge to a federal sentence — 28 U.S.C. § 2255: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255 Ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review — Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/500/

The Second Circuit considers whether New York can stop Holtec from releasing water from the closed Indian Point nuclear power plant into the Hudson River. Holtec is decommissioning the plant, meaning dismantling it and dealing with its radioactive materials. The planned discharge includes tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen. In twenty twenty-three, New York enacted a law banning radiological discharges into the Hudson connected with nuclear plant decommissioning, subject to federal law. Holtec sued, saying federal nuclear law leaves this disposal decision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A federal district judge agreed, and New York is appealing that judgment. The key legal term is field preemption: federal law occupies an area of regulation, so states cannot regulate within it. Section twenty twenty-one of the Atomic Energy Act divides responsibility between federal and state regulators, while preserving state authority for purposes other than radiation hazards. New York will argue that its law protects economic interests and does not set radiation safety levels. Holtec will contend that nuclear decommissioning and licensed radioactive-waste disposal remain federal responsibilities, even though the reactors no longer produce electricity. Holtec International v. The State of New York (No. 25-2657) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2657.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and judgment under review — September 24, 2025 district court opinion, Doc. 48; not a decision of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2024cv02929/619761/48/0.pdf?ts=1758815502 Federal and state nuclear regulation — Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2021: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2021 New York discharge prohibition — Environmental Conservation Law § 30-0103: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/30-0103 New York legislative findings — Environmental Conservation Law § 30-0101: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/30-0101 Tritium definition — Nuclear Regulatory Commission glossary: https://www.nrc.gov/education-regulatory-research/glossary/tritium

The Ninth Circuit hears Steven Scott's appeal following his federal trial in Montana. Prosecutors said that, in twenty twenty-four, he asked an undercover officer posing as a minor for sexually explicit pictures and offered gift cards. A second charge concerned images of a minor from a twenty eighteen Snapchat investigation. The jury convicted him of attempted coercion and enticement, and possession of child pornography. He also had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. That background makes it important to distinguish direct proof of a charged crime from propensity evidence: using past conduct to suggest someone likely acted the same way again. Rule four-oh-four generally bars that inference, but allows other uses, such as proving identity. Rule four-fourteen creates a specific exception for other child-molestation evidence in cases covered by the rule. It is not a blank check: Rule four-oh-three still allows exclusion when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the evidence's value. Those facts and rules set up the evidence question: which uses are permitted when a prosecution combines these different charges? Finally, a motion in limine asks the judge to exclude evidence before it is presented. USA v. Scott (No. 26-192) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-192.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-192&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Trial background and verdict — U.S. Attorney announcement, September 16, 2025; prosecution account, not this appeal’s decision: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/jury-finds-previous-sex-offender-guilty-coercion-and-child-pornography-charges Unfair prejudice — Federal Rule of Evidence 403: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 Other-acts evidence — Federal Rule of Evidence 404: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 Similar crimes and definitions — Federal Rule of Evidence 414: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_414 Rule 414 and unfair prejudice — United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/260/1018/494934/ Motion in limine — Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, footnote 2 (1984): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/38/ Motion in limine — independently authored Cornell Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine

The Second Circuit hears James Thomas's appeal over a prison search and alleged retaliation. In February twenty nineteen, officers at New York's Sullivan Correctional Facility searched him for suspected contraband. Thomas says an officer sexually assaulted him during the search, and that he later faced threats and retaliation for complaining. The defendants dispute his account. A federal judge granted them summary judgment, ending the case without a trial, including qualified immunity on his Fourth Amendment search claim. Thomas will argue that his sworn evidence raises questions for a jury; the state will defend the judgment. Summary judgment is available when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law entitles the moving party to win. The court must draw reasonable inferences in the opposing party's favor, rather than decide which witnesses to believe. Qualified immunity can protect an officer from civil damages even for unconstitutional conduct, unless the violated right was clearly established at the time. Here, the panel will consider the manner of the search, and whether recordings and logs resolve the contested facts or leave questions for a jury. Thomas v. Jacobs (No. 25-701) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording; both sides finish and exchange thanks; only the judge’s final closing phrase is cut off in the official file: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-701.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and judgment under review — February 28, 2025 district court opinion, Doc. 98; not a decision of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2019cv06554/519314/98/0.pdf?ts=1740837892 Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Qualified immunity — Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–232 (2009), official U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep555/usrep555223/usrep555223.pdf

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears Jonathan Stein's dispute with the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. Stein had worked with the Tribe on a proposed casino project. After their relationship broke down, the Tribe obtained a state-court judgment against him for fraud and other wrongdoing. Stein later filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy, where the Tribe sought to prevent that debt from being discharged. The bankruptcy court ruled that the judgment debt could not be eliminated through his discharge. Here, Stein will challenge the Tribe's legal capacity to pursue the bankruptcy action, pointing to tax-related documents and arguing that earlier rulings do not settle its later status. The Tribe will contend that the state court already resolved those objections. Issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel, can prevent relitigating an issue actually and necessarily decided in an earlier final judgment, when the other requirements are met. An interlocutory order is an interim ruling, rather than a final judgment. Capacity means an entity's legal ability to sue or be sued. Civil Rule seventeen B three includes an exception allowing an unincorporated association without state-law capacity to sue in its common name to enforce a substantive federal right. Whether that exception applies is part of this dispute. Recording note: The official file cuts off during post-submission courtroom administration; the argument, formal submission and counsel's thanks are complete. In re Stein (No. 25-1204) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-1204.mp3 Case and date — official court recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1204&hearingDate=2026-10-15 CC-25-1204-GNS — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Casino-contract dispute and state-court findings — 2023 California appellate opinion; earlier litigation, not this appeal's outcome: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/unpublished-opinion-1.pdf Independent contemporaneous casino-project reporting — Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2006: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-26-me-gabrielino26-story.html Earlier judgment and collection litigation — 2021 federal remand order, Document 24: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2021cv05871/826325/24/ Bankruptcy and dischargeability complaint — October 2023 official case calendar, pp. 31–33: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_102523.pdf Capacity and preclusion in related adversary 23-01066 — January 2025 official reasons, pp. 91–96: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_012825.pdf Court account of prior nondischargeability judgment 201 in adversary 23-01023 — May 2025 calendar, p. 31: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_050725.pdf Capacity of unincorporated associations — Civil Rule 17(b)(3): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17 Exceptions to discharge — 11 U.S.C. §523(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 Issue preclusion — Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. 322, 326 and note 5: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep439/usrep439322/usrep439322.pdf Final and nonfinal orders — Civil Rule 54(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54 Interlocutory — Cornell legal glossary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears three related appeals in Christopher Callaway's bankruptcy. Callaway was involved in a contract dispute with M. Dattani Credit Trust and held interests in San Francisco cannabis ventures. The property involved includes business ownership interests and legal claims, not just physical assets. A bankruptcy estate is the pool of property administered for creditors. The trustee asked for approval to sell estate assets; Callaway asked to have property abandoned back to him. A later motion asked the court to define the scope of abandonment. Those competing requests are behind these related appeals. Section three sixty-three provides for estate-property sales outside the ordinary course of business after notice and a hearing. Under Section five fifty-four B, a court may order abandonment after notice and a hearing if property is burdensome to the estate, or of inconsequential value and benefit to it. Abandonment can return property to the debtor, rather than selling it. A scrivener's error is a clerical or drafting mistake; the speakers dispute clarification versus expansion of an earlier order while an appeal is pending. In re Callaway (No. 26-1006) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1006.mp3 Case and date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1006&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Related appeals NC-26-1006, NC-26-1007 and NC-26-1080 — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Contract dispute, business interests and earlier estate-administration background — June 26, 2024 bankruptcy decision, Document 44; not the orders now on appeal: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-canb-3_24-bk-30082/pdf/USCOURTS-canb-3_24-bk-30082-0.pdf Sale motion 116 and abandonment motion 114 — December 19, 2025 official calendar; scheduled motions, not dispositions: https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge/calendar/12.19%20at%2010_0.pdf Later motion 181 to define and compel abandonment — March 13, 2026 official calendar; scheduled motion, not disposition: https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge/calendar/03.13%20at%2010_0.pdf Bankruptcy-estate property — 11 U.S.C. §541(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/541 Sale outside the ordinary course — 11 U.S.C. §363(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/363 Abandonment and retained estate property — 11 U.S.C. §554: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/554 Clerical mistakes in orders — Civil Rule 60(a); term context, not an opinion on these appeals: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_60

The Fourth Circuit hears an appeal in a prisoner's civil-rights suit against South Carolina correctional officers. Joshua Jeter says officers assaulted him at Broad River Correctional Institution, and that others stood by instead of intervening. The claims include an incident behind his complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, called PREA, and a separate April twenty twenty-one use of force. The officers dispute his account and say videos contradict it. The district court found genuine factual disputes and let some claims proceed; the officers now seek qualified immunity before trial. Qualified immunity protects officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known. The two prongs discussed here ask whether the plaintiff's supported version describes a constitutional violation, and whether the right was clearly established at the time. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case has ended. The court can review legal immunity questions now, but generally cannot revisit which disputed events actually happened. Under Scott versus Harris, a court need not accept a version of events so blatantly contradicted by the record that no reasonable jury could believe it. Carmen Ganjehsani will ask the court to reverse the denial of immunity; John Warren will defend the ruling allowing Jeter's disputed claims to proceed. Joshua Jeter v. Miguel Cleveland (No. 25-6425) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-6425-20261014.mp3 Case, date and advocates — official recording archive: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files October 14, 2026 hearing — official Greenville calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf Allegations, video dispute and prior ruling — May 6, 2025 district order, Document 132; public copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2:2022cv01651/272151/132/0.pdf?ts=1746708926 Case identity and counsel appearance — appellate docket; older snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-6425 Qualified-immunity protection and two questions — Pearson versus Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–232: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-555/pdf/USREPORTS-555-223.pdf Limits on immediate fact-based appeals — Johnson versus Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 309–313: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep515/usrep515304/usrep515304.pdf Record blatantly contradicting an account — Scott versus Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–381: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep550/usrep550372/usrep550372.pdf

The Fourth Circuit hears Jack Williams's challenge to the dismissal of his product-liability lawsuit against Sig Sauer. His P three-twenty discharged while he sat on a motorcycle with the holstered pistol in his back pocket. He says a design defect allowed it to fire without a full trigger pull; Sig Sauer disputes that explanation. The district court excluded his two proposed experts and granted summary judgment, ending the case without a trial. The dispute is whether their testing and experience reliably connected an alleged defect to this particular discharge. Federal Evidence Rule seven-oh-two makes the judge a gatekeeper for expert testimony. The party offering an expert must show, more likely than not, that the testimony meets the rule's requirements, including sufficient facts, reliable methods and reliable application to the case. The twenty twenty-three amendment made that burden express; admissibility means whether the jury may hear the opinion, while weight concerns how persuasive an admitted opinion is. Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge leeway on that evidence ruling, rather than simply asking what the appeals court would have done. Lawson Hester will argue for Williams; Eric Lasker will defend Sig Sauer's judgment. Later, the panel turns to a separate firearms-industry liability law and a dispute over concealed carrying. Jack Williams v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (No. 25-2196) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-2196-20261014.mp3 Case, date and advocates — official recording archive: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files October 14, 2026 hearing — official Greenville calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf Incident, expert rulings and procedural background — actual September 8, 2025 district order, public copy; allegations distinguished from findings: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-eas-div/117709766.html Counsel identities and sides — current-case appearance entries 3 and 13; older docket snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-2196 Expert testimony — Federal Evidence Rule 702, including the 2023 amendment: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf Review of expert-evidence rulings — General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141–143; general doctrine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-522/pdf/USREPORTS-522-136.pdf Firearms-industry liability protection — 15 U.S.C. §7902: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/7902 PLCAA definitions and product-defect exception — 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(v): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/7903 Firearm-design liability — N.C. General Statutes §99B-11; underlying state-law context: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_99B/GS_99B-11.html

Creditor Angela Arnone challenges Gerardo Gonzalez's bankruptcy discharge before the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Gonzalez entered bankruptcy owing Arnone a judgment debt. She challenged his reported household expenses and payments within his family, alleging that the financial picture he presented was dishonest. The bankruptcy court ruled for Gonzalez without a trial, leaving her debt covered by his discharge. A discharge releases the debtor from personal liability for covered debts, subject to statutory exceptions. Arnone represents herself and will argue that the court improperly accepted Gonzalez's explanations instead of allowing disputed questions of intent to be tried. Emily Thompson will defend the judgment as Gonzalez's lawyer. Section seven twenty-seven's false-oath provision requires a material false statement made knowingly and fraudulently in the bankruptcy case; an innocent mistake is not enough. Materiality concerns the statement's connection to the debtor's property or the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Summary judgment means deciding without a trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law entitles one side to win. Sua sponte means on the court's own initiative; Rule fifty-six permits that after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The three-forty-one meeting you will hear mentioned is the creditors' meeting, where the trustee questions the debtor. In re Gonzalez (No. 26-1066) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1066.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1066&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-26-1066-NSG — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Background and challenged summary judgment — actual bankruptcy memorandum, February 2, 2026, pages 1–9 and 21–29; allegations distinguished from findings: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/SV-24-01028-MB_GerardoErnestoGonzalezJr.pdf Procedural history and link to this appeal — actual reconsideration order, April 30, 2026; not the appellate result: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/SV-24-AP-01028-MB_GerardoErnestoGonzalezJr.pdf Discharge and false oaths — 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A), (b): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/727 Exceptions to discharge — 11 U.S.C. §523(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/523 Summary judgment and court-initiated rulings — Civil Rule 56(a), (f), December 1, 2025 edition: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Materiality and fraudulent intent — actual Retz v. Samson opinion, 606 F.3d 1189, 1196–1199; general doctrine only: https://openjurist.org/606/f3d/1189/retz-v-samson Creditors’ meeting — 11 U.S.C. §341(a), (d): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/341