Daily Digest — 2026-08-22

No Congressional Record issue was observed on this day. The Record for a day's proceedings is typically published by govinfo the following morning; it appears in the digest for the day it is observed (how our clocks work).

1.1 Senate

No Senate floor items met the selection thresholds. 0 floor granule(s) are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

1.2 House of Representatives

No House floor items met the selection thresholds. 0 floor granule(s) are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

1.3 Recorded Votes

No recorded votes were published in this issue of the Congressional Record.

Source: Congressional Bills (BILLS), text versions published 2026-08-22 to 2026-08-22.

2.1 Counts by Stage

2.2 Bills Listed by Mechanical Rule

Bills below are listed because they matched at least one listing rule; the matching rule is stated per item. All other bill texts are counted above and accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

No bill texts published in this range matched a listing rule; all 12 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-08-22.

3.1 Counts by Document Type

3.2 Rules Published

No rules were published in this issue.

3.3 Proposed Rules Published

No proposed rules were published in this issue.

3.4 Notices and Presidential Documents

Notices are summarized only when they match a listing rule; all are counted in 3.1 and in the Coverage Statement. Presidential documents in the FR are always listed.

No notices or presidential documents matched a listing rule.

Source: Public and Private Laws (PLAW) published 2026-08-22.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-08-22 by our collector; each opinion states its own issue date beside its listing (how our clocks work).

Completeness disclosure (standing): USCOURTS carries opinions from approximately 140 participating appellate, district, bankruptcy, and national federal courts. Unlike the Congressional Record and the Federal Register, which are the complete official record of their branches, USCOURTS is participation-based and is NOT the complete federal judicial record. Courts post opinions with delay — typically over several days — so a day's digest carries the opinions that became available that day, whatever date each was issued.

5.1 Appellate and National Court Opinions

judicialcircuit court decisions (model-generated key)criminal convictions (model-generated key)immigration appeals (model-generated key)

In plain terms This section contains 75 Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, largely affirming lower court rulings in criminal convictions, immigration appeals, and various civil matters.

Appellate and national court opinions are summarized; district and bankruptcy opinions are counted in 5.2 and in the Coverage Statement.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

• USA v. Enyinna Onyewu (No. 22-03063; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Enyinna Onyewu, Emmanuel Sumo, and Quaysa Flumo for robbery-related offenses. The appellants had challenged their convictions on multiple grounds, including claims for a new trial, acquittal, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed and rejected each of their arguments, concluding that none succeeded.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit upheld robbery convictions for three people, rejecting all their arguments, including requests for a new trial or claims of poor legal help.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-22-03063 / USCOURTS-caDC-22-03063-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Quaysa Flumo (No. 23-03216; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Enyinna Onyewu, Emmanuel Sumo, and Quaysa Flumo for robbery-related offenses. The appellants had challenged their convictions on multiple grounds, including claims for a new trial, acquittal, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed and rejected each of their arguments, concluding that none succeeded.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit upheld robbery convictions for three people, rejecting all their arguments, including requests for a new trial or claims of poor legal help.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-23-03216 / USCOURTS-caDC-23-03216-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Emmanuel Sumo (No. 23-03217; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Enyinna Onyewu, Emmanuel Sumo, and Quaysa Flumo for robbery-related offenses. The appellants had challenged their convictions on numerous grounds, including the admission of certain evidence and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that none of their arguments succeeded, upholding the district court's decisions regarding evidence admission.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit upheld robbery convictions for Enyinna Onyewu, Emmanuel Sumo, and Quaysa Flumo, rejecting all arguments, including challenges to evidence use and claims of poor legal help.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-23-03217 / USCOURTS-caDC-23-03217-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Preferred Building Services, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 24-01384; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a petition for review filed by Preferred Building Services, Inc. and a cross-application for enforcement by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board had determined that Preferred and Ortiz Janitorial Services violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees who participated in picketing. The court denied Preferred's petition and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit rejected a company's request for review and approved the Labor Board's request to enforce an order finding the company violated labor law by firing picketing employees.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-01384 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-01384-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Garrick Richardson (No. 24-03151; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered a Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. The court held that this section is constitutional as applied to felons who remain under supervision as part of a criminal sentence when they commit a § 922(g)(1) offense. The decision affirmed the denial of Garrick Richardson's motion to dismiss his indictment.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit upheld a federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms as constitutional for those still under supervision, affirming the refusal to dismiss Garrick Richardson's charges.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-03151 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-03151-0 (opens in a new tab)
• NLRB v. Preferred Building Services, Inc. (No. 25-01042; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a petition for review filed by Preferred Building Services, Inc. and a cross-application for enforcement by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board had determined that Preferred and Ortiz Janitorial Services violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees who participated in picketing. The court denied Preferred's petition and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit rejected a company's request for review and approved the Labor Board's request to enforce an order finding the company violated labor law by firing picketing employees.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01042 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01042-0 (opens in a new tab)
• David Rudometkin v. Daniel Driscoll (No. 25-05033; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether untimely pro se notices of appeal should be construed as motions to extend or reopen appeal time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or (6). The court established a standard: a notice must recognize its lateness, provide reasons, and request relief. Applying this standard, the court remanded David J. Rudometkin's case for further consideration but dismissed Evangelistic Godson's appeal as untimely.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit set a standard for late appeals filed by individuals without lawyers, requiring them to acknowledge lateness and request relief; it sent one case back but dismissed another.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-05033 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-05033-0 (opens in a new tab)
• National Council of Nonprofits, et al v. OMB, et al (No. 25-05148; filed 2026-08-21) — The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a challenge to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-13, which directed federal agencies to temporarily pause certain financial assistance programs. Organizations receiving federal funding had argued the memorandum mandated a global funding freeze. The court vacated a preliminary injunction against the memorandum, concluding that the challenge was likely moot because OMB had rescinded the memorandum and demonstrated it would not issue a similar directive in the future.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit canceled a temporary court order against an OMB memo that paused federal funding, finding the challenge irrelevant as OMB withdrew the memo and will not issue a similar one.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-05148 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-05148-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Evangelistic Godson v. Johns Hopkins Medicine, et al (No. 25-07011; filed 2026-08-21) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed whether untimely pro se notices of appeal should be interpreted to include a motion to extend or reopen appeal time. The court determined that if such a notice recognizes its lateness, explains the delay, and requests relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or (6), it should be construed as a motion. The court applied this standard, remanding one case for further proceedings and dismissing another.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit ruled that late appeals by individuals without lawyers should be treated as extension requests if they admit lateness and ask for relief, sending one case back and dismissing another.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-07011 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-07011-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Democracy Partners, LLC, et al v. Project Veritas Action Fund, et al (No. 25-07080; filed 2026-08-21) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered a case involving a jury's damages award against media defendants and an alleged fiduciary relationship. The court held that the damages award for publishing a news story violated the First Amendment. It also determined that a media defendant did not become a fiduciary of her news target by posing as an unpaid intern, and accordingly reversed the denial of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit ruled a jury's money award for a news story violated the First Amendment and overturned a lower court's refusal to rule for media defendants regarding an alleged trust relationship.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-07080 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-07080-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Shana Hargrove v. MedStar Washington Hospital Center, et al (No. 25-07129; filed 2026-08-21) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed a medical malpractice case where expert causation testimony was excluded. The District Court had granted summary judgment to the defendants after excluding the plaintiff's expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and 37(c)(1). The Court of Appeals sustained the District Court's decision to exclude the testimony of one of the plaintiff's experts.
• In plain terms The D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to not allow a plaintiff's expert testimony in a medical malpractice case, leading to the lower court ruling for the defendants.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-07129 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-07129-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• United States v. Nicole Roy (No. 24-02946; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion and entered judgment in the case of United States v. Nicole Roy. The document informed counsel about post-submission procedures, including the 14-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision and judgment, informing lawyers about procedures including a 14-day deadline to request another hearing by the same court or all judges.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-24-02946 / USCOURTS-ca8-24-02946-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Harrison Dudley, Sr. (No. 24-03011; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion and entered judgment in the case of United States v. Harrison Dudley, Sr. The document provided counsel with information on post-submission procedures, including the 14-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision and judgment, informing lawyers about procedures, including a 14-day deadline for filing requests for another hearing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-24-03011 / USCOURTS-ca8-24-03011-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Jermaine Hester (No. 25-02405; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion and entered judgment in the case of United States v. Jermaine Hester. The document instructed counsel on post-submission procedures, specifying the 14-day deadline for petitions for rehearing.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision and judgment, instructing lawyers on procedures, including a 14-day deadline for filing requests for another hearing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-02405 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-02405-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• USA v. Victor Diego Estrada (No. 24-13498; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence of Victor Diego Estrada, who was convicted of drug distribution offenses. The court remanded the case for resentencing, determining that the district court's lack of explicit factual findings at the initial sentencing precluded meaningful appellate review.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Victor Diego Estrada's drug distribution sentence and sent the case back for resentencing because the district court did not make explicit factual findings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-13498 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-13498-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Nathaniel Braxton (No. 24-13968; filed 2026-08-21) — Nathaniel Braxton appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon and his 45-month imprisonment sentence. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence, citing prior precedent that foreclosed Braxton's constitutional challenges and finding the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Nathaniel Braxton's conviction for firearm possession as a felon and his 45-month sentence, citing precedent and the district court's explained sentencing decision.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-13968 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-13968-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Rishi Ramdial v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 25-10093; filed 2026-08-21) — Rishi Ramdial petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, which deemed him removable as an aggravated felon and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that his Florida conviction for robbery by sudden snatching qualified as an aggravated felony theft offense. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA's decision, holding that the Florida statute matches the generic definition of theft for immigration law purposes.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA's decision that Rishi Ramdial is removable as an aggravated felon, finding his Florida robbery conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony theft offense.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10093 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10093-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Wakilii Brown v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (No. 25-10210; filed 2026-08-21) — Wakilii Brown, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Alabama, sought a federal writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the admission of a statement at trial violated the federal Due Process Clause. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the petition, concluding that the statement's admission did not violate the Due Process Clause and any error was harmless.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of Wakilii Brown's habeas petition, finding that the admission of a statement at his capital murder trial did not violate the Due Process Clause.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10210 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10210-0 (opens in a new tab)
• John Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al (No. 25-10415; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court order dismissing a Florida inmate's complaint. The inmate had been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's "three-strikes" provision. The appellate court determined that the district court should have considered the inmate's objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation, which included new factual allegations and a request to amend, either as an amendment or a motion to amend.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an order dismissing a Florida inmate's complaint, stating the lower court should have considered his objections and request to amend after being barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10415 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10415-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Trenton Watkins (No. 25-11084; filed 2026-08-21) — Trenton Watkins appealed his 24-month sentence, which was imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contended the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, finding that the district court adequately explained its justification for the upward variance and did not abuse its discretion.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Trenton Watkins' 24-month sentence after his supervised release revocation, finding the district court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-11084 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11084-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Fiona Blair v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 25-11942; filed 2026-08-21) — Fiona Blair sued Harvard University, alleging breach of contract and other state law claims related to her daughter's death. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, determining that Ms. Blair lacked Article III standing due to an inadequate pleading of a traceable injury. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing and remanded the case for the district court to specify that the dismissal was without prejudice, vacating the alternative holding on timeliness.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Fiona Blair's lawsuit against Harvard for lack of standing, sending it back for the lower court to specify dismissal without prejudice.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-11942 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11942-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Masri Sastrawan v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 25-12057; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Masri Sastrawan's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order. The BIA had denied Sastrawan's third motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which was based on claims of changed country conditions in Indonesia. The Court concluded that the BIA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding Sastrawan failed to establish a material change in country conditions, noting new criminal code provisions had not yet been implemented.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Masri Sastrawan's request to review the BIA's order, finding the BIA reasonably concluded he failed to show materially changed conditions in Indonesia.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12057 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12057-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Nacoe Brown (No. 25-12653; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government's motion for summary affirmance in the case of Nacoe Ray Brown. Mr. Brown had appealed the district court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time notice of appeal concerning a sentence reduction. The Court determined that Mr. Brown abandoned his argument on appeal by not addressing the denial of his out-of-time motion in his brief.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the government's position against Nacoe Ray Brown because he failed to address the denial of his out-of-time appeal motion in his brief.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12653 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12653-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Edward Verdi-Bruno (No. 25-13720; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Edward Verdi-Bruno's post-judgment motions seeking relief from his sentence. Mr. Verdi-Bruno sought to correct a sentencing enhancement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 and to set aside his judgment for fraud on the court. The court determined that Rule 36 does not permit substantive changes to a sentence, and that claims of fraud on the court in a criminal case fall under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of Edward Verdi-Bruno's motions to change his sentence, stating that Rule 36 does not allow substantive changes and fraud claims belong under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13720 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13720-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Jane Doe, II v. Founding Fourteen, Inc, et al (No. 25-13894; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part a district court's summary judgment ruling regarding claims of sexual harassment. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find the school liable under Title IX for hiring and retaining a teacher despite knowledge of past allegations. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on Title IX claims concerning the school's actions after the student's report and on all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed and partly upheld a summary judgment, finding a school could be liable under Title IX for retaining a teacher despite past sexual harassment allegations.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13894 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13894-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Domingo Rojas v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 25-13934; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Domingo Rojas's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order. The BIA affirmed an Immigration Judge's denial of adjustment of status due to a finding that Rojas filed a frivolous asylum application. The Court concluded that the Immigration Judge adhered to procedural requirements in determining that Rojas's asylum application was frivolous.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Domingo Rojas's request to review a BIA order, finding the Immigration Judge followed procedure in denying adjustment of status due to a frivolous asylum application.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13934 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13934-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Eastwood Village v. Larry Williams (No. 25-14419; filed 2026-08-21) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Larry Williams's appeal of a district court order remanding his case to state court. The district court had remanded the case due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that such remand orders are not reviewable on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and (d).
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Larry Williams's appeal of a case sent back to state court, stating that such remand orders are not reviewable by appeals courts.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-14419 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-14419-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Vanessa Kaiser (No. 26-10843; filed 2026-08-21) — Vanessa Vanley Kaiser, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance. The court concluded that Kaiser had not demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release, finding she had received the benefit of safety-valve relief and that rehabilitation alone does not constitute such a reason.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Vanessa Vanley Kaiser's request for compassionate release, finding she did not show an extraordinary reason for early release.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-10843 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-10843-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Jonathan Lewis v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (No. 26-11823; filed 2026-08-21) — Jonathan K. Lewis filed a petition for review with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) inaction on his employment discrimination charge. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It stated that Congress has not granted federal courts of appeals the authority to review EEOC decisions or inaction directly, instead providing for civil actions in federal district courts after administrative remedies are exhausted.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Jonathan K. Lewis's request to review the EEOC's inaction, stating appeals courts lack jurisdiction to directly review EEOC decisions.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-11823 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-11823-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Miller v. Collins (No. 24-01790; filed 2026-08-21) — Karl Ervin Miller, Jr. appealed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of an earlier effective date for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. Miller argued that the Board's application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(2) (2006) was an impermissible retroactive application of the regulation. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Board’s application of the regulation was prospective and proper, affirming the judgment of the Veterans Court.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit Court affirmed that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals properly applied a 2006 regulation prospectively, not retroactively, in denying Karl Ervin Miller, Jr.'s request for an earlier PTSD effective date.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-24-01790 / USCOURTS-ca13-24-01790-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires (No. 24-02378; filed 2026-08-21) — Inventor-advocacy groups sued the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), contending that language on patent covers stating a "right to exclude" is misleading following the Supreme Court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the PTO's failure to amend the language and its continued use as agency action. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing, concluding that the appellants had not adequately pleaded a threat of future injury to establish standing.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit Court affirmed dismissal of a suit by inventor-advocacy groups challenging the Patent and Trademark Office's "right to exclude" patent cover language, finding no adequate pleading of future injury.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-24-02378 / USCOURTS-ca13-24-02378-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

• Kipp Flores v. AMH Creekside (No. 23-50750; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C., concerning claims under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the DMCA claims. It vacated the dismissal of the copyright infringement claims and remanded for further proceedings.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims but reversed the dismissal of copyright infringement claims, sending the case back for further proceedings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-23-50750 / USCOURTS-ca5-23-50750-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Johnson v. Tarrant County (No. 25-10540; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal by Anthony R. Johnson, Sr., and Jacqualyne Y. Johnson. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's judgment in the appeal filed by Anthony R. Johnson, Sr., and Jacqualyne Y. Johnson.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10540 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10540-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Media Matters for America (No. 25-10630; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Media Matters for America, seeking a venue transfer to the Northern District of California. The court granted Media Matters’ petition in part. It ordered the district court to vacate its order denying transfer and to conduct a venue analysis.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court partly granted Media Matters for America's request for a court order, directing the district court to reconsider its denial of a venue transfer and to analyze the proper location for the case.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10630 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10630-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Risby (No. 25-10953; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied William Morris Risby's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court determined that Risby failed to meaningfully challenge the district court's denial of his petition to dismiss and for immediate release. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and his motions to disqualify judges and for bond were also denied.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court denied William Morris Risby's request to appeal without paying fees and dismissed his appeal, finding he did not challenge the district court's denial of his release request or other motions.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10953 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10953-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. London (No. 25-20102; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Davantae London's appeal, enforcing his appeal waiver. The case was remanded from the Supreme Court after its decision in Hunter v. United States regarding appeal waivers. The Fifth Circuit determined that London's challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines did not meet the standard for a miscarriage of justice.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed Davantae London's appeal by enforcing his appeal waiver, finding his challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines did not meet the standard required to overturn the waiver.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20102 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20102-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Sanchez (No. 25-20465; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion of Wilfredo Sanchez's appointed attorney to withdraw from representation. The court found no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review after reviewing counsel's brief and the record. The appeal was dismissed.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court granted Wilfredo Sanchez's attorney's request to withdraw and dismissed the appeal, concluding that no serious issue existed for appellate review after examining the brief and record.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20465 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20465-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Norcave Properties v. IRS (No. 25-30542; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Norcave Properties, L.L.C.'s suit against the Internal Revenue Service. The court held that accuracy-related tax penalties are considered part of tax liability under the Internal Revenue Code. Consequently, the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act preclude federal court jurisdiction over Norcave's pre-payment challenge to these penalties.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of Norcave Properties' suit against the IRS, ruling that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear pre-payment challenges to accuracy-related tax penalties due to federal law.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30542 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30542-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Castaneda-Castillo (No. 25-51005; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentencing of Luis Ramon Castaneda-Castillo for smuggling goods. Castaneda-Castillo argued that a prior smuggling incident should not be considered relevant conduct for his base offense level calculation. The court determined that other offenses do not require conviction or charges to be considered relevant conduct and found sufficient evidence and distinctive similarities between the incidents to establish a course of conduct.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed Luis Ramon Castaneda-Castillo's smuggling sentence, ruling that a prior incident, even without conviction, was properly considered "relevant conduct" due to sufficient evidence and similarities.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-51005 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-51005-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Hernandez v. Paxton (No. 26-50109; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Alejandro Hernandez's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Hernandez, previously classified as a vexatious litigant, challenged a state court's permission requirement for his appeals. The court determined that the judgment was not prospective under Rule 60(b)(5) and that no extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6), also finding his constitutional claims without merit.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the denial of Alejandro Hernandez's request for relief from a judgment, finding the judgment was not prospective and no extraordinary circumstances existed to grant his motion.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50109 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50109-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• US v. Bourget (No. 23-01582; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the criminal conviction of correctional officer Seth Bourget for deprivation of rights under color of law. Bourget had appealed his conviction, stemming from striking an inmate with a shield during a forced cell move. The court rejected Bourget's arguments, including that the trial evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld correctional officer Seth Bourget's criminal conviction for striking an inmate with a shield during a cell move, rejecting his appeal arguments.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-23-01582 / USCOURTS-ca1-23-01582-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC (No. 24-01863; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Air-Con, Inc. for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's judgment was not final. This was because Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC's counterclaim for damages had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility for it to be revived in the district court.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Air-Con, Inc.'s appeal because the lower court's judgment was not final, as Daikin's counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-24-01863 / USCOURTS-ca1-24-01863-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Galakatos v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al (No. 25-01282; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Nicholas Galakatos's lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and related entities. Galakatos had asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging Marsh failed to procure adequate liability insurance. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Nicholas Galakatos's lawsuit, which alleged Marsh & McLennan failed to get adequate insurance, finding the complaint lacked a valid legal claim.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01282 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01282-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Hurley v. Curtis, et al (No. 25-01830; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in a lawsuit brought by former residents and the owner of a sober home. The plaintiffs had alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights and Massachusetts state law during police entries to Genesis House. The court concluded that some claims lacked merit, others were waived, and the remainder were barred by qualified immunity.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the police officers' summary judgment victory against a sober home's residents and owner, finding their claims about police entries lacked merit, were waived, or were barred by qualified immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01830 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01830-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Catanese v. Curtis, et al (No. 25-01833; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in a lawsuit brought by former residents and the owner of a sober home. The plaintiffs had alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights and Massachusetts state law during police entries to Genesis House. The court concluded that some claims lacked merit, others were waived, and the remainder were barred by qualified immunity.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the police officers' summary judgment victory against a sober home's residents and owner, finding their claims about police entries lacked merit, were waived, or were barred by qualified immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01833 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01833-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Skeffington v. Curtis, et al (No. 25-01834; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in a lawsuit brought by former residents and the owner of a sober home. The plaintiffs had alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights and Massachusetts state law during police entries to Genesis House. The court concluded that some claims lacked merit, others were waived, and the remainder were barred by qualified immunity.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the police officers' summary judgment victory against a sober home's residents and owner, finding their claims about police entries lacked merit, were waived, or were barred by qualified immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01834 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01834-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Catanese v. Curtis, et al (No. 25-01835; filed 2026-08-21) — The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in a case involving alleged Fourth Amendment violations and state law claims. Plaintiffs, former residents and the owner of a sober home, had sued officers following multiple entries into the home. The appellate court determined some claims were without merit, others were waived, and the remainder were barred by qualified immunity.
• In plain terms The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld police officers' summary judgment win in a lawsuit by a sober home's residents and owner, finding claims regarding home entries lacked merit, were waived, or barred by qualified immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01835 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01835-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• Monica Ussery v. Honorable Eddie M. Buffaloe, Jr. (No. 24-01671; filed 2026-08-21) — Monica Ussery appealed the district court’s dismissal of her second amended complaint, which stemmed from her April 2020 arrest at a protest against North Carolina’s COVID-19 emergency orders. Ussery had sued various officials and the City of Raleigh, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in its rulings on plausible allegations, qualified immunity, or the claim against the City.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of Monica Ussery's complaint regarding her April 2020 arrest at a protest, finding no error in the district court's rulings on plausible allegations or qualified immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-24-01671 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-01671-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. John Williams, III (No. 24-04503; filed 2026-08-21) — John Robert Williams, III appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Williams challenged the statute's constitutionality as applied to him and argued the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and dismiss the indictment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, citing precedent for the Second Amendment challenge and finding no error in the district court’s conclusions regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause for search, or Speedy Trial Act compliance.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed John Robert Williams, III's conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, rejecting his challenge to the law and finding no error in rulings on evidence or trial speed.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-24-04503 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-04503-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Christopher Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (No. 25-01495; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a jury verdict that awarded Christopher Billesdon over $22 million in a case alleging disability discrimination and retaliation by Wells Fargo Securities, LLC. The court affirmed the portion of the award related to the retaliation claim. It reversed the judgment for three other claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed part of a $22 million jury award for Christopher Billesdon's retaliation claim against Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, but reversed judgment for three other claims and sent the case back for more proceedings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01495 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01495-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Kevin Ajenifuja v. Edward Owusu (No. 25-01953; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal concerning the dismissal of a civil complaint and the denial of reconsideration. The district court had dismissed the complaint on grounds of res judicata. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's orders.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's orders, including the dismissal of a civil complaint and denial of reconsideration, agreeing that the complaint was barred by a previous judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01953 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01953-0 (opens in a new tab)
• N'Neka Henderson v. W. Townsend (No. 26-06396; filed 2026-08-21) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal regarding the dismissal of N’Neka Henderson's complaint due to an unfulfilled in forma pauperis payment requirement. Henderson later provided proof of payment to the district court, which issued an indicative ruling suggesting it would grant her Rule 60(b) motion if the case were remanded. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of ruling on Henderson's Rule 60(b) motion.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit Court sent back N’Neka Henderson's case to the district court to rule on her Rule 60(b) motion, after the court suggested it would grant relief following her proof of payment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-26-06396 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-06396-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

• STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET A (No. 24-2701; filed 2026-08-21) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court's order and remanded a case with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. The State of California and a gun control advocacy group had challenged a Final Rule from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish the necessary causal link between a specific example in the regulation concerning partially complete firearm receivers and their asserted injuries.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit canceled a lower court's order, sending the case back to be dismissed because California and a gun group could not show they were harmed by a challenged gun rule.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-2701 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-2701-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA V. CISNEROS (No. 24-6774; filed 2026-08-21) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Felix Cisneros, Jr., a former special agent convicted of bribery and misusing a law enforcement database. Cisneros challenged the application of a sentencing guideline enhancement for public officials in a "high-level decision-making or sensitive position." The appellate court found the guideline text ambiguous and deferred to the commentary, which identifies law enforcement officers as holding "sensitive positions," thus affirming the enhancement's application and the District Court's sentencing rationale.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit upheld a former agent's sentence for bribery, affirming the increase in recommended punishment for those in "sensitive positions," by following the official explanation of the guideline.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-6774 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-6774-0 (opens in a new tab)
• CHERRY, ET AL. V. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, ET AL. (No. 25-4763; filed 2026-08-21) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's summary judgment regarding religious accommodation claims under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The court held that an employer's offer of a reassignment process with a limited possibility of accommodation, without information on whether positions preserved employment status, was not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law. For two of the employees, their Title VII claims were affirmed as they failed to meet procedural requirements.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit partially upheld and overturned a lower court's ruling in a religious accommodation case, finding an employer's reassignment offer was not legally reasonable, and upholding some claims failed procedurally.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-4763 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-4763-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

• Kilroy Watkins v. Sharon Richardson, et al (No. 25-01656; filed 2026-08-21) — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal in Kilroy Watkins v. Sharon Richardson, et al. Kilroy Watkins sued police and state child welfare employees, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations after he was directed to leave his sister's home where his minor nieces resided. The appeals court determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, finding no clearly established constitutional violations under the circumstances.
• In plain terms The Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court's ending of a case where a man sued police and child welfare employees, finding officials had protection from lawsuits due to no clear rights violations.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-01656 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-01656-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Nicole Traphan v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services, et al (No. 25-02296; filed 2026-08-21) — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services and a coworker in an employment discrimination case. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the alleged harassment was connected to the plaintiff's race or gender, as the coworker exhibited similar behavior towards other employees. Additionally, the court found no evidence of pretext for a failure-to-promote claim or an adverse action for a retaliation claim.
• In plain terms The Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court's decision in an employment discrimination case, finding no harassment tied to race or gender, no false reason for not promoting, and no negative action for retaliation.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-02296 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-02296-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ronnie Famous v. Joseph Jezwinski, et al (No. 25-02681; filed 2026-08-21) — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment regarding a Wisconsin prisoner's claims of inadequate medical care and failure to prevent self-harm. The court determined that a psychiatric-care technician was not deliberately indifferent to a genuine risk of self-harm, as the prisoner's threat was vague. Furthermore, the medical treatment provided for the prisoner's injury did not establish deliberate indifference, as disagreement among doctors or the persistence of some pain with medication does not violate Eighth Amendment rights.
• In plain terms The Seventh Circuit upheld a lower court's decision without a full trial concerning a prisoner's claims of inadequate medical care and failure to prevent self-harm, finding no purposeful neglect by staff.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-02681 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-02681-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• Latoreya Till, et al v. Kenneth King, et al (No. 25-01558; filed 2026-08-21) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss in Latoreya Till, et al v. Kenneth King, et al. The case involves a judge who allegedly detained a 15-year-old minor, had her wear a prison jumpsuit, and held a mock trial after she fell asleep during a vocational program. The appeals court determined that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the judge's actions were nonjudicial and thus not shielded by judicial immunity.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss, finding a judge's alleged detention, prison jumpsuit requirement, and mock trial for a 15-year-old were plausibly nonjudicial actions, thus not protected by immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-01558 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-01558-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Latoreta Till, et al v. Kenneth King, et al (No. 25-01614; filed 2026-08-21) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss in Latoreta Till, et al v. Kenneth King, et al. The case concerns a judge who allegedly detained a 15-year-old minor, had her wear a prison jumpsuit, and held a mock trial after she fell asleep during a vocational program. The appeals court concluded that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the judge's actions were nonjudicial and therefore not protected by judicial immunity.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision not to dismiss a case where a judge allegedly detained a 15-year-old for a mock trial, finding the actions were nonjudicial and not protected from lawsuits.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-01614 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-01614-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Russ Gordon, et al v. City of Hamtramck, MI, et al (No. 25-01917; filed 2026-08-21) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment in Russ Gordon, et al v. City of Hamtramck, MI, et al. The case involved plaintiffs challenging a city resolution that restricted the types of flags flown on city-owned flagpoles. The resolution specified that only governmental flags and flags representing Hamtramck's international character could be displayed, following a period where other flags, including a Pride flag, were flown.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision in a case challenging a city rule that restricted flags on city flagpoles to only governmental or international character flags.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-01917 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-01917-0 (opens in a new tab)
• OPERS v. FHLMC, et al (No. 25-03765; filed 2026-08-21) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part a district court's decision in OPERS v. FHLMC, et al, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) had brought securities fraud claims against the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and its officers. The appeals court addressed the district court's denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit partially overturned and canceled a lower court's decision, sending back a securities fraud case involving a refusal to allow a group lawsuit and a ruling without a full trial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-03765 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-03765-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Jacob Julick v. Scott Jordan, et al (No. 25-05667; filed 2026-08-21) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment in Jacob Julick v. Scott Jordan, et al. An inmate sued prison officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations for excessive force and cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. The appeals court concluded that the inmate's claims regarding pepper spray use and cell conditions did not establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision in a case where an inmate sued prison officers for cruel punishment, finding his claims about pepper spray and cell conditions did not violate his rights.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-05667 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-05667-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

• Fuston v. Quick (No. 24-06166; filed 2026-08-21) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Ronnie Fuston's federal habeas petition, upholding his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence from Oklahoma. Fuston had challenged the state court's failure to provide a lesser-included instruction for second-degree murder and its denial of an intellectual disability hearing. The Court concluded that the state court's application of Supreme Court precedents regarding these claims was not unreasonable.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of Ronnie Fuston's habeas petition, affirming his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, finding the state court's rulings were not unreasonable.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-24-06166 / USCOURTS-ca10-24-06166-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Rose (No. 25-01443; filed 2026-08-21) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Matthew Scott Rose's motion for a sentence reduction. The district court had denied the motion on two independent grounds, including that statutory sentencing factors would prevent a reduction. Rose challenged only one of these grounds on appeal, leading the Tenth Circuit to uphold the ruling.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Matthew Scott Rose's request for a sentence reduction because he only challenged one of the district court's two denial reasons.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-01443 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01443-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Barber (No. 26-03165; filed 2026-08-21) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Robert E. Barber's motion for authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas application. Barber argued that the state court's application of a new law to his motion to correct an illegal sentence was an "ex post facto violation." The court determined that Barber's proposed claim did not meet the statutory requirements for authorization, as it was not based on a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Robert E. Barber's request to file another federal habeas petition, finding his claim did not meet statutory requirements for new, retroactive constitutional law or newly discovered evidence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-03165 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-03165-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• USA v. Philip Epps (No. 24-02542; filed 2026-08-21) — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order granting a new trial for Philip Epps and remanded the case. The district court had granted Epps a new trial after a jury, following a supplemental instruction that included the phrase "you have to" reach a unanimous decision, returned a guilty verdict. Epps had sought the new trial two weeks after the verdict, arguing the instruction was unduly coercive.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court reversed the district court's order granting Philip Epps a new trial, sending the case back, after he argued a jury instruction stating "you have to" reach a unanimous decision was coercive.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-24-02542 / USCOURTS-ca3-24-02542-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Joel Ruelas-Manzo v. Attorney General United States of America (No. 25-01411; filed 2026-08-21) — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Joel Ruelas Manzo's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Manzo had sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his United States citizen children. The court found Manzo forfeited his challenge to the agency's hardship conclusions and determined that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the children would not experience the statutorily required level of hardship.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court denied Joel Ruelas Manzo's request to review a decision, finding he gave up his challenge to the finding that his removal would not cause his U.S. citizen children "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-01411 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-01411-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Cesar Plaza Rivera, et al v. Attorney General United States of America (No. 25-02255; filed 2026-08-21) — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for review filed by Cesar Augusto Plaza Rivera and his daughter, upholding the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The court determined that Petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies concerning the immigration judge's nexus finding for their asylum and withholding claims. It also found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Petitioners did not establish they were more likely than not to be tortured with the acquiescence of the Colombian government.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court denied a request to review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and torture protection for Cesar Augusto Plaza Rivera and his daughter, finding they failed to use all administrative procedures and lacked torture evidence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-02255 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-02255-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Christopher Birry (No. 25-02380; filed 2026-08-21) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of Christopher Essameddin Birry's motion to suppress evidence. Birry had argued that police unlawfully extended a traffic stop and that the subsequent search exceeded the scope of his consent. The appellate court found that the duration of the traffic stop was constitutional due to safety-related inquiries and that the search remained within the scope of Birry's oral consent.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court affirmed the denial of Christopher Birry's request to exclude evidence, ruling the traffic stop was constitutional for safety reasons and the subsequent search did not go beyond his verbal consent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-02380 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-02380-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Jason Mika (No. 25-02473; filed 2026-08-21) — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s application of the drug-premises enhancement for Jason Mika, who pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Mika had appealed the two-level increase in his offense level, arguing his residence was not maintained for the purpose of drug distribution. The appellate court concluded that the District Court's finding that drug-dealing was a significant or primary purpose in maintaining the residence was not clearly erroneous.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court affirmed a two-level increase in Jason Mika's offense level for drug distribution, finding the district court was not wrong to conclude his residence was significantly used for drug dealing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-02473 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-02473-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Chryssoula Arsenis (No. 25-03595; filed 2026-08-21) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed Chryssoula Arsenis's appeal of a District Court order denying her motions for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. Arsenis sought to prevent a sheriff's sale of her property following a foreclosure judgment and a bankruptcy court order. The appellate court determined the appeal was moot because the Bankruptcy Court subsequently converted her bankruptcy case and reinstated the automatic stay, providing the same relief Arsenis sought.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court dismissed Chryssoula Arsenis's appeal to stop her property's sheriff's sale as pointless, because the Bankruptcy Court later reinstated an automatic stay, providing her the same protection she sought.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-03595 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-03595-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Jermaine Lewis (No. 26-02348; filed 2026-08-21) — Jermaine Lewis petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel a Magistrate Judge to recuse himself from a District Court case and for reassignment of the matter. Lewis alleged undisclosed professional relationships between the Magistrate Judge and defense counsel's firm. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding that Lewis did not meet the burden of showing a clear and indisputable right to relief based on conclusory assertions.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court denied Jermaine Lewis's request for a court order to force a Magistrate Judge to step down and reassign his case, finding Lewis did not clearly prove his right to this relief.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-02348 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-02348-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Frank Monte, III (No. 26-02872; filed 2026-08-21) — Frank Michael Monte, III, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for a writ of mandamus related to his criminal and habeas corpus proceedings. Monte sought orders directing the District Court to entertain his pro se filings, transfer his habeas case to a different division, and compel the District Judge's recusal. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding Monte had not established a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and had alternative avenues for some requests.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit Court denied Frank Monte, III's request for a court order to accept his self-filed papers, transfer his habeas case, and force a judge to step down, finding no clear right to relief.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-21)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-02872 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-02872-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of International Trade

• Inspired Ventures LLC v. United States (No. 1:24-cv-00062; filed 2026-08-20) — The United States Court of International Trade issued an Opinion and Order regarding Inspired Ventures, LLC's motion for summary judgment against the United States. The court determined that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had not released the imported rubber tires at issue, contrary to the plaintiff's argument. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
• In plain terms The Court of International Trade partially granted and denied a company's request for a ruling without a full trial, finding Customs had not released imported rubber tires as argued.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-20)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00062 / USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00062-0 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 30267 USCOURTS package(s) have been listed in delta syncs but fell outside the 7-day archive window and were not fetched (global running count across all syncs, not limited to this date).

Official press releases and statements the agencies themselves date on 2026-08-22 (sources listed in the source guide). These are the agencies' own announcements — official advocacy, quoted and attributed, not findings of this digest. Agency web content can be edited or removed without notice; captures and hashes are preserved per the provenance policy.

NASA News Releases

• APOD: 2026 August 22 – Mostly Perseids (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-08-22 by the agency
• Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot)
• Source: agency newsroom (above) · independent archive (opens in a new tab)

VA News Releases

• From homelessness to housing: Building financial stability (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-08-22 by the agency
• Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot)

Also observed this day, not listed above: 1 release(s) the agencies date on other days (feed backfill from newly activated sources). Excluded under AGENCYPR-EX-01; counted in the Coverage Statement; captures preserved.

Roll-call votes the chambers themselves record on 2026-08-22, in vote-number order. Every recorded vote in the window is listed: selection is by existence, not by importance, and no rule here prefers one question over another. Tallies and member positions come from the chamber's own published vote record, captured and hashed like every other source. This is the chambers' vote record itself; section 1.3 lists the Congressional Record granules in which votes were printed.

No recorded votes dated this day were observed.

What the chambers did with individual measures on 2026-08-22, as the Library of Congress's own bill-status record states it. Every action in the ingestion window is listed, in bill-designation order: selection is by existence, not by importance, and no rule here prefers one measure over another. Section 2 lists the text of bills published this day; this section lists what happened to them.

Publication lag: the record dates an action by the day the chamber took it and publishes it the following morning, so this section fills in after the day it describes has ended — the same lag the judicial section carries, and it is restated under Known gaps.

No bill actions dated this day were observed.

Source: the Executive Office of the President, as published on whitehouse.gov and observed 2026-08-22. These are the President's own instruments — executive orders, proclamations, memoranda — carried here as the White House published them, days before the Federal Register compiles them into section 3.

Register (GUIDE §2): titles are the publisher's words and appear verbatim; any prose of ours about them is attributed, exactly as it is for agency releases. This section states what the White House published, never whether it was significant.

No presidential actions dated this day were observed. The White House publishes on its own schedule; an action taken today may appear in a later digest, and one dated earlier is counted under PRESACT-EX-01 rather than listed as today's news.

This section is mandatory and appears in every digest, including days with no publications. It accounts for every package observed on this digest day (GUIDE §3, observation-day filing); each package's own date may differ and is stated where it does. "Excluded" always names the mechanical rule; there are no unexplained omissions.

Sync summary: BILLS: completed 2026-08-23T12:35:41Z · CREC: completed 2026-08-23T12:35:40Z · FR: completed 2026-08-23T12:35:42Z · PLAW: completed 2026-08-23T12:35:44Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-08-23T12:35:43Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 1092 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 4 item(s)
• AGENCYPR-EX-01: release dated outside this day by the agency (feed backfill / newly activated source) — counted, not listed — 1 item(s)

Source graphics: 0 graphic(s) flagged across today's documents: 0 content graphic(s) (equations, forms, maps, annex pages) and 0 boilerplate (signatures/seals, excluded by rule FR-GPH-01). Of the content graphics, 0 were analyzed via vision pass (vision pass not yet implemented) and 0 embedded above; the remainder are viewable in the cited source PDFs.

Known gaps: 12 package(s) were not fetched and are not covered above; courts post opinions with delay; opinions filed on this date may appear in later syncs.

Verification: any item above can be checked against its source in one click via its govinfo link. Totals in this table are reproducible from the stored extraction records for 2026-08-22.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (14137fc). Editorial principles — primary sources only, opinion-agnostic prose, mechanical party-blind selection, full coverage accounting — are defined in GUIDE.md §2. Ruleset in effect: prompt version 2; plain-language version 2. To reproduce this digest: re-run the report stage against the extracted records for 2026-08-22; no upstream re-fetch is required (GUIDE.md §5).

Filing note (2026-08-06, standing): digests from 2026-08-06 file govinfo packages under their day of first observation — FAPD's three clocks are explained in the FAQ. The Federal Register files under its cover date, on which it is legally published. Digests before 2026-08-06 filed by each document's own date; the two Congressional Record issues observed 2026-08-04/05 (proceedings of 08-03/08-04) fell between the freeze and this change and appear in no digest — disclosed here, not backfilled.

"In plain terms" lines are model-generated restatements of the stored summaries, derived only from the summary text shown beside them; items without one had no usable restatement. ALL-CAPS source headings are case-normalized for display; original casing is preserved at the source link. Term definitions above are static, repo-versioned prose.

License: this digest's compilation and prose are CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab) (credit "FAPD — Free Agentic Publication Digester"); quoted official government text is public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105).