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.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

Docket: 1:23-CV-01773-PAB-NRN)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Justin A. Jefferson’s pro se civil action challenging policies of the Colorado Department of Corrections Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program (SOTMP) for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court applied de novo review, requiring the complaint to contain sufficient factual matter to plausibly infer that the challenged policies were not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under the standard set forth in *Turner v. Safley*. Regarding Jefferson’s Fifth Amendment claim regarding compelled self-incrimination, the court held that prison policies conditioning treatment on admitting guilt, submitting to polygraph examinations, and disclosing sexual history are valid if reasonably related to rehabilitation, a legitimate penological interest. Citing *McKune v. Lile* and *Searcy v. Simmons*, the court determined that Jefferson failed to allege facts showing these requirements were not rationally related to rehabilitation, noting that the loss of parole eligibility is a consequence of failing to complete treatment rather than compulsion in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Regarding his Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning denial of enrollment, the court affirmed dismissal due to lack of standing, as Jefferson did not challenge the district court’s specific analysis on this issue. Finally, regarding his First Amendment claim prohibiting access to sexually explicit materials, the court declined to consider the merits because Jefferson failed to preserve the objection with sufficient specificity in the district court, resulting in a waiver under the firm waiver rule. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the dismissal of Jefferson’s lawsuit stands, and his motion seeking certification of a question regarding the validity of *Turner* was denied.

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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

Docket: 2:24-cv-14317-DMM

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Theodore Griffin’s § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was timely filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), as it was submitted within thirty days of the district court’s disposition of Griffin’s last timely motion to alter or amend the judgment. On the merits, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found no error in the district court’s factual determination that Griffin received the order he failed to follow. Relying on a rebuttable presumption that mail is received when properly mailed, the court noted the clerk mailed the order four days before Griffin transferred facilities and that no mail was returned as undeliverable; Griffin’s unsupported claim of non-receipt failed to rebut this presumption. Furthermore, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to evaluate lesser sanctions or make a finding of willfulness, as those procedural requirements generally apply only to dismissals with prejudice, whereas Griffin’s case was dismissed without prejudice. The practical consequence is that the dismissal remains in effect, though because it was without prejudice, Griffin may potentially refile his claims if he can do so within the applicable statute of limitations and comply with all future court orders.

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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

Docket: 2:22-cr-00105-RAH-JTA-2

The eleventh-circuit affirmed Shalonda Faison’s sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release, rejecting her claim that the district court breached a binding plea agreement. The court applied the plain error standard of review because Faison failed to object to the sentencing terms in the district court. Under this standard, an unpreserved error is reversible only if it is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights. The court analyzed whether the plea agreement provision stating “a sentence of 28 months is the appropriate disposition” was breached by including supervised release. While acknowledging that “sentence” can broadly encompass both imprisonment and supervised release, the court found the term ambiguous in this context. Consequently, the court looked to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent, noting that the district court, Faison’s counsel, and the government all understood the agreement as a directive to reimpose the specific sentence previously vacated by this court in 2024, which included supervised release. Because the district court’s interpretation was supported by this extrinsic evidence and was not “clearly” or “obviously” wrong, the court concluded that no plain error occurred. The practical consequence is that Faison’s conviction and sentence remain in effect as imposed by the district court.

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: 1:13-CV-02894-SKC)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a prisoner’s motion for a writ of execution and its dismissal of related claims, holding that the Colorado Department of Corrections satisfied the $3.5 million judgment entered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when state authorities redirected the funds to pay the plaintiff’s outstanding restitution debts to crime victims. The court applied the standard of de novo review to the legal question of whether a judgment is satisfied and relied on the principle that federal courts possess only “ancillary jurisdiction” over post-judgment proceedings necessary to enforce their own judgments, which terminates once the judgment is satisfied. Distinguishing prior circuit cases involving recoupment schemes that frustrated federal rights enforcement, the court reasoned that diverting funds to satisfy a prisoner’s restitution obligations provides the plaintiff with the financial benefit of the judgment and does not defeat the compensatory or deterrent purposes of the ADA. Consequently, because the judgment was deemed satisfied, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of Colorado’s intercept statute or to entertain new claims against non-parties regarding the diversion procedures. The practical consequence is that the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as moot, and he must pursue any challenges to the state’s interception procedures in a separate action rather than through enforcement of the original federal judgment.

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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

Docket: 4:24-cr-00066-JRH-CLR-1

The eleventh-circuit granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the appellant and affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California*, conducting an independent review of the trial record to assess the appeal’s merit. Finding no arguable issues of merit, the court concluded that counsel’s assessment was correct and issued a summary affirmation without oral argument. As a result, the defendant’s conviction and sentence from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia remain in effect.

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