Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

The First Circuit granted an administrative stay of paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the District Court’s preliminary injunction entered on June 12, 2026. The court based this decision on its review of the Defendants-Appellants’ Emergency Motion for an Administrative Stay, noting that the stay preserves the District Court’s existing stay of the Secretary’s Order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705. While granting the administrative stay, the court explicitly reserved ruling on the request for a stay pending appeal, stating it intends to address that specific motion promptly.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

Docket: 5:19-CV-01198-D)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes’ claim for liquidated damages under Part 11.E of the 2006 gaming compact, holding that such a claim constitutes a retroactive monetary award barred by the State of Oklahoma’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court ruled that the *Ex parte Young* exception does not apply because the relief sought was compensatory damages for a past breach rather than prospective injunctive or declaratory relief regarding ongoing federal law violations. Regarding the Tribe’s remaining claim for a declaratory judgment excusing it from paying exclusivity fees under Part 11.A, the court held that the Tribe possessed Article III standing to sue the Governor in his official capacity. The court determined that causation was satisfied because the Governor’s signing of legislation allegedly violating the Compact fairly traced the Tribe’s monetary injury, and redressability was established because a declaratory judgment would have issue-preclusive effect against nonparty state officials (such as the State Treasurer) who possess enforcement authority over the Compact fees. On the merits of the exclusivity-fee claim, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Governor, finding that the phrase “additional electronic or machine gaming” in Part 11.A is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to conflicting interpretations regarding whether it refers strictly to “covered games” defined in the Compact or carries a broader plain meaning. The court remanded the case with directions to vacate the summary judgment and resolve the ambiguity, permitting the district court to consult extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

The Tenth Circuit denied Melvin Louis Bailey, III a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court held that Bailey failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), meaning reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution of his claims. Regarding Bailey’s claim that his confession should have been suppressed due to lack of proof regarding his sobriety, the court affirmed the district court’s procedural default ruling. The court found no reasonable jurist could debate that the claim was barred because Bailey failed to raise it on direct appeal and did not demonstrate cause or actual prejudice to excuse the default. Regarding Bailey’s claim challenging his § 924(c) convictions based on *United States v. Taylor*, which held attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, the court applied harmless error analysis under *Hedgpeth v. Pulido*. The court concluded that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s finding that any instructional error was harmless because overwhelming evidence supported a rational jury’s finding that Bailey completed the three underlying robberies, which are valid crimes of violence. Finally, the court found Bailey’s “Illegal Sentence” claim meritless due to a complete lack of factual support. As a practical consequence, Bailey’s appeal is terminated, his § 2255 motion remains denied, and his appointed appellate counsel is granted leave to withdraw from representation.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.