Daily Digest — 2026-08-29

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 2026-08-29 to 2026-08-29.

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 0 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-08-29.

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 2026-08-29.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-08-29 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

judicialcivil disputes (model-generated key)criminal convictions (model-generated key)federal appeals (model-generated key)

In plain terms Eighty-three federal decisions span criminal convictions (drug trafficking, firearms, bank robbery), immigration appeals, employment disputes, civil suits, and a jury verdict against military contractor CACI for Abu Ghraib torture liability.

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

• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 21-07127; filed 2024-07-30) — The District of Columbia Circuit examined whether Exxon could sue Cuban state-owned entities under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 for trafficking in property confiscated by Cuba in 1960. The court held that Title III does not independently overcome foreign sovereign immunity, but the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial-activity exception may apply and requires further analysis. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded for additional consideration of jurisdiction.
• In plain terms The DC Circuit examined whether Title III of the Cuban Liberty Act overcomes foreign sovereign immunity but found further analysis needed on the commercial-activity exception and remanded.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-21-07127 / USCOURTS-caDC-21-07127-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 21-07127; filed 2026-08-28) — The District of Columbia Circuit remanded consolidated cases to the district court for further proceedings following a Supreme Court reversal of the circuit court's prior judgment in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., 146 S. Ct. 1909 (2026).
• In plain terms The DC Circuit remanded cases following the Supreme Court's reversal of the prior judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-21-07127 / USCOURTS-caDC-21-07127-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 22-07019; filed 2024-07-30) — Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Cuban state-owned entities under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act for trafficking in oil and gas properties expropriated in 1960 from Exxon subsidiaries. The District of Columbia Circuit held that the statute does not independently overcome foreign sovereign immunity but that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception may apply, and remanded for further analysis.
• In plain terms A law about Cuba does not automatically override foreign sovereign immunity, but an exception for commercial activities might allow the lawsuit to proceed.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-22-07019 / USCOURTS-caDC-22-07019-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 22-07019; filed 2026-08-28) — Following the Supreme Court's reversal of the District of Columbia Circuit's prior decision, the circuit court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., 146 S. Ct. 1909 (2026).
• In plain terms After the Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision, the court remanded the case to the lower court to follow the Supreme Court's ruling.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-22-07019 / USCOURTS-caDC-22-07019-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 22-07020; filed 2024-07-30) — The District of Columbia Circuit examined whether Exxon could sue Cuban state-owned entities under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 for trafficking in property confiscated by Cuba in 1960. The court held that Title III does not independently overcome foreign sovereign immunity, but the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial-activity exception may apply and requires further analysis. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded for additional consideration of jurisdiction.
• In plain terms The DC Circuit examined whether Title III of the Cuban Liberty Act overcomes foreign sovereign immunity but found further analysis needed on the commercial-activity exception and remanded.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020 / USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), et al (No. 22-07020; filed 2026-08-28) — The Court of Appeals remanded consolidated cases to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's reversal and opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., 146 S. Ct. 1909 (2026).
• In plain terms The Court of Appeals remanded cases following the Supreme Court's reversal and opinion.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020 / USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020-1 (opens in a new tab)
• East Tennessee Group v. FERC (No. 24-01253; filed 2026-08-28) — The Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of East Tennessee Natural Gas's pipeline expansion project and customer rate increase, rejecting claims that delays in providing security-sensitive pipeline flow data to intervenors violated their procedural due process rights. The court found FERC adequately addressed the intervenors' arguments regarding project necessity and rate fairness.
• In plain terms The Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a pipeline expansion project and rate increase.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-01253 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-01253-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Cesar Almonte (No. 24-03069; filed 2026-08-28) — The Court of Appeals affirmed Cesar Gomez Almonte's conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine in an international drug-smuggling operation. The court rejected his claims that an 18-month pre-arrest delay violated his speedy trial rights, that venue in Washington D.C. was improper, and that jury composition warranted a new trial.
• In plain terms Cesar Gomez Almonte's conviction for cocaine conspiracy was upheld; claims about trial delay, venue, and jury composition were rejected.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-03069 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-03069-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Cheryl Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al (No. 24-07154; filed 2026-08-28) — The Court of Appeals upheld rejection of Uber's motion to compel arbitration of personal injury claims arising from a guest ride, ruling that the guest rider was not contractually bound by Uber's arbitration terms through an unsolicited text message. The court found he could not be bound through the ride-ordering user's account when he was not a party to that contract.
• In plain terms The Court of Appeals ruled that a guest rider was not bound by Uber's arbitration terms through an unsolicited text message.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-07154 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-07154-0 (opens in a new tab)
• East Tennessee Group v. FERC (No. 25-01072; filed 2026-08-28) — The Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of East Tennessee Natural Gas's pipeline expansion project and customer rate increase, rejecting claims that delays in providing security-sensitive pipeline flow data to intervenors violated their procedural due process rights. The court found FERC adequately addressed the intervenors' arguments regarding project necessity and rate fairness.
• In plain terms The Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a pipeline expansion project and rate increase.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01072 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01072-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• United States v. Freddie Gladney, III (No. 24-03333; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this criminal appeal. Petitions for rehearing must be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision in a criminal appeal; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-24-03333 / USCOURTS-ca8-24-03333-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Charlie Harper (No. 25-01582; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this criminal appeal. Petitions for rehearing must be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision in a criminal appeal; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01582 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01582-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Dontae Burrage (No. 25-01640; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this criminal appeal. Petitions for rehearing must be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision in a criminal appeal; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01640 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01640-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Steve Simon, et al (No. 25-01703; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Steve Simon, et al on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 45 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 45 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01703 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01703-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Gurvinder Singh v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-01867; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in Gurvinder Singh v. Todd Blanche on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 45 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 45 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01867 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01867-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable (No. 25-02081; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in Rachael Post v. Frank Bisignano on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 45 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 45 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-02081 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-02081-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Andrew Halloran v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America (No. 25-02550; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in Andrew Halloran v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 14 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-02550 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-02550-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Tina Sengooba v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-03236; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in Tina Sengooba v. Todd Blanche on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 45 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 45 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-03236 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03236-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Kennis Walker (No. 26-01453; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in United States v. Kennis Walker on August 28, 2026. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be filed within 14 days of judgment entry in compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit issued a decision on August 28, 2026; petitions to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-26-01453 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01453-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• USA v. Luis Nunez (No. 22-12868; filed 2026-08-28) — Luis Nunez was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute aboard a stateless vessel off Colombia and appealed on constitutional grounds. He argued Congress exceeded its authority under the Felonies Clause by prosecuting conduct in foreign exclusive economic zones and by defining 'vessel without nationality' in the statute. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, finding prior precedent foreclosed all constitutional arguments.
• In plain terms A man convicted of possessing cocaine to sell on a ship without nationality off Colombia appealed his conviction on constitutional grounds, and the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-22-12868 / USCOURTS-ca11-22-12868-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Mario Tovar (No. 22-13023; filed 2026-08-28) — Mario Tovar was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute aboard a stateless vessel off Colombia and appealed on constitutional grounds. He argued Congress exceeded its authority under the Felonies Clause by prosecuting conduct in foreign exclusive economic zones and by defining 'vessel without nationality' in the statute. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, finding prior precedent foreclosed all constitutional arguments.
• In plain terms A man convicted of possessing cocaine to sell on a ship without nationality off Colombia appealed his conviction on constitutional grounds, and the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-22-13023 / USCOURTS-ca11-22-13023-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Geraldo Rodriguez (No. 22-13662; filed 2026-08-28) — Geraldo Rodriguez was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute aboard a stateless vessel off Colombia and appealed both his conviction and sentencing. He raised constitutional arguments challenging the statute, and on sentencing appealed the application of a career-offender enhancement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction on constitutional grounds and found harmless error on the sentencing issue, as his sentence would have been the same regardless of the erroneous enhancement.
• In plain terms A man convicted of possessing cocaine to sell on a ship off Colombia appealed his conviction and sentence; the court upheld both, finding a sentencing error would not have changed the outcome.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-22-13662 / USCOURTS-ca11-22-13662-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Reginald Smith, Jr. (No. 23-10003; filed 2026-08-28) — Reginald Smith was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and MDMA possession and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act to a mandatory minimum 15-year prison term based on prior state cocaine convictions. On appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute under the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause, disputed whether his prior convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under ACCA, and contested the district court's sentencing analysis. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence, rejecting all constitutional and sentencing challenges.
• In plain terms A felon convicted of possessing a firearm and MDMA was sentenced to 15 years minimum based on prior convictions; he challenged the sentence on constitutional grounds, and the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-23-10003 / USCOURTS-ca11-23-10003-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Patrick Porter (No. 24-12859; filed 2026-08-28) — Patrick Porter, convicted of drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to 179 years of imprisonment, moved for compassionate release arguing that the First Step Act's elimination of mandatory sentence stacking for multiple firearm convictions constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for reduction. Before the appeal was decided, the Supreme Court held in Rutherford v. United States that non-retroactive changes in law cannot serve as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Porter's motion.
• In plain terms A man sentenced to 179 years for drug and firearm offenses sought a reduced sentence arguing recent changes to sentencing law provided grounds for relief; the court denied the request.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-12859 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-12859-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Wilbert McKreith (No. 24-12946; filed 2026-08-28) — Wilbert McKreith, convicted of multiple bank robberies and firearm offenses and sentenced to 1,110 months of imprisonment, moved for compassionate release arguing that changes to mandatory firearm sentencing under the First Step Act created an extraordinary and compelling reason for reduction due to gross disparity with current sentencing law. The district court denied the motion, finding that McKreith's history of violence both inside and outside prison demonstrated he would present a danger to the community if released. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the dangerousness determination.
• In plain terms A man sentenced to over 90 years for bank robberies and firearm offenses sought a reduced sentence; the court denied it, finding he would be dangerous if released.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-12946 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-12946-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Jason McWilliams (No. 24-13902; filed 2026-08-28) — Jason McWilliams was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl following a traffic stop. After pleading guilty and waiving his appellate rights except on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, he appealed claiming his trial counsel was ineffective. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, holding that the record was not sufficiently developed to address the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, but preserved his right to raise the issue in a collateral proceeding.
• In plain terms A man pleaded guilty to conspiracy to sell fentanyl and appealed claiming his lawyer was ineffective; the court upheld the conviction but preserved his right to raise the issue later.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-13902 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-13902-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Tamika Momanyi v. The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama (No. 24-14244; filed 2026-08-28) — Tamika Momanyi appealed the dismissal of claims alleging that the University of Alabama at Birmingham discriminated against her and retaliated against her based on her anxiety disorder under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of her Title I employment discrimination and related Title V retaliation claims and remanded for dismissal without prejudice, but affirmed the dismissal of her Title II student discrimination claims and constitutional claims.
• In plain terms A student appealed dismissal of her discrimination claims based on a mental health condition; the court allowed some employment claims to proceed but upheld dismissal of student discrimination claims.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-14244 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-14244-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Enode Duvercy v. USA (No. 25-10063; filed 2026-08-28) — Enode Duvercy, a federal prisoner, appealed the denial of a motion claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that defendants have no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals and therefore ineffective assistance of counsel is not a cognizable claim based on failure to advise of such discretionary review rights.
• In plain terms A federal prisoner claimed his lawyer failed to inform him of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court; the court held there is no right to counsel for discretionary appeals.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10063 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10063-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Joshua Havel (No. 25-10085; filed 2026-08-28) — Joshua Havel was sentenced to 180 months for receiving child pornography and appealed whether his prior conviction for lewd or lascivious battery qualified as a predicate offense triggering a mandatory 15-year minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 2252A(b)(1). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that under the categorical approach, sexual conduct with a minor constitutes abusive sexual conduct within the meaning of the statute.
• In plain terms A man sentenced to 15 years for receiving child pornography appealed whether his prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor qualified as a predicate offense; the court upheld the sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10085 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10085-0 (opens in a new tab)
• James River Insurance Company v. Yalonda Ventura (No. 25-11139; filed 2026-08-28) — James River Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that an assault and battery sublimit of $25,000 per occurrence and $50,000 aggregate in its insurance policy applied to claims arising from a shooting at a shopping center and that a $50,000 settlement payment had exhausted the sublimit. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the insurer.
• In plain terms An insurance company sought to enforce a $25,000 limit on assault coverage for claims from a shopping center shooting, and the court upheld that decision.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-11139 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11139-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Corey Burroughs (No. 25-11948; filed 2026-08-28) — Corey Burroughs was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl and maintaining a drug premises. He appealed the denial of motions to suppress evidence from a traffic stop, exclude videos from his phone depicting him with drugs, and enter judgment of acquittal. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the traffic stop was supported by probable cause, the videos were probative evidence, and the evidence was sufficient to support conviction on all counts.
• In plain terms A man convicted of possessing and selling methamphetamine and fentanyl appealed motions to suppress evidence from a traffic stop and phone videos; the court upheld the conviction.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-11948 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11948-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Melanie Betancourt v. Victor Sanchez, et al (No. 25-12240; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the estate of Alberto Betancourt, who died after Miami-Dade police officers responded to a welfare check call and initiated a Baker Act involuntary psychiatric examination after Betancourt made statements about self-harm. The court found that the officers' conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment based on the undisputed facts and body camera footage presented during the motion to dismiss phase.
• In plain terms A family sued over a death that occurred during a police welfare check and involuntary psychiatric examination; the court ruled the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12240 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12240-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Maryann Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc. (No. 25-13895; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a negligence lawsuit against VanishPoint syringe manufacturer Retractable Technologies, finding that the plaintiff's expert witness—a general surgeon—lacked the qualifications to testify about manufacturing and design defects, and that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of her negligence claims.
• In plain terms A woman's negligence lawsuit against a syringe manufacturer was dismissed because her expert witness lacked qualifications to testify about manufacturing defects.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13895 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13895-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Nicholas Smith, Jr. v. Timothy Webster, et al (No. 25-13903; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint as a "shotgun pleading" that violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pleading standards by being disorganized, failing to connect allegations to specific claims, and failing to specify which defendants were allegedly responsible for which acts.
• In plain terms A plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed for violating pleading rules by being disorganized and failing to connect allegations to claims and defendants.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13903 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13903-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Robert Battle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (No. 25-14365; filed 2026-08-28) — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Social Security Administration's denial of Robert Battle's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Administrative Law Judge determined that despite Battle's congestive heart failure, hypertension, and other conditions, he retained the functional capacity to perform light work, including his past work as a security guard, and no apparent conflict existed between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
• In plain terms A man's disability benefits applications were denied after the Social Security Administration found he could still work as a security guard despite heart disease and hypertension.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-14365 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-14365-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• T-Mobile US, Inc. v. Kaifi LLC (No. 25-01006; filed 2026-08-28) — The Federal Circuit transferred a patent settlement dispute to the Fifth Circuit, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the case turns on state contract law interpretation of the phrase "survives the EPR" rather than on a substantial question of federal patent law.
• In plain terms A patent lawsuit was transferred because it primarily involves interpreting a state contract rather than federal patent law.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01006 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01006-0 (opens in a new tab)
• AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. (No. 25-01280; filed 2026-08-28) — The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit on both improper venue and patent ineligibility grounds, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the district court should have dismissed solely on the venue defect once it determined venue was improper.
• In plain terms A patent lawsuit was dismissed because it was filed in the wrong court and the claims did not involve eligible patent subject matter.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01280 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01280-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

• M. v. Aledo (No. 25-10824; filed 2026-08-28) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a school district is not required to proceed with a full and individual initial evaluation when parents refuse to consent to certain components. Parents of a child with Down syndrome objected to formal cognitive testing but consented to informal play-based testing; the court held that such partial consent fails to meet IDEA's requirement for informed parental consent to a complete evaluation.
• In plain terms A school district did not have to complete a full special education evaluation when parents consented only to informal testing, as federal law requires full parental consent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10824 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10824-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LA Shrimp Association v. Lutnick (No. 25-30408; filed 2026-08-28) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision upholding the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2019 rule requiring all skimmer-trawl vessels 40 feet or longer to use turtle-excluder devices to reduce incidental takings of endangered sea turtles. The court rejected the Louisiana Shrimp Association's and three individuals' challenge to the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• In plain terms An appeals court upheld a federal rule requiring large fishing vessels to use devices that protect endangered sea turtles from being caught in nets.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30408 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30408-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Pena v. Starr County, Texas (No. 25-40481; filed 2026-08-28) — Alberto Pena died in Starr County Jail custody after repeatedly striking his head during arrest and detention; an autopsy listed cardiorespiatory arrest while under the influence of mixed drugs as the cause of death. Pena's family sued Starr County and detention officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs and failure to supervise. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for all defendants.
• In plain terms A family sued over a man's death in county jail; the court ruled the officers were not deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-40481 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-40481-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Garza-Rodriguez (No. 25-50928; filed 2026-08-28) — Oscar Garza-Rodriguez appealed his conviction for illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), challenging the constitutionality of the recidivism enhancement provision in § 1326(b). The Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction in summary fashion, finding his argument foreclosed by binding precedent.
• In plain terms Oscar Garza-Rodriguez's appeal of his illegal reentry conviction, challenging a recidivism enhancement's constitutionality, was rejected by the Fifth Circuit based on binding precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50928 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50928-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Tariq v. Blanche (No. 25-60537; filed 2026-08-28) — Ahtesham Tariq, a Pakistani national, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection claims. The Fifth Circuit upheld the denial, finding the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination was supported by specific reasons and that Tariq's documentary evidence did not compel a conclusion that government officials would acquiesce to torture.
• In plain terms An asylum appeal by a Pakistani national was denied after the court found his credibility questionable and his evidence insufficient to prove torture risk.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-60537 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-60537-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Olivera-Romo v. Blanche (No. 25-60615; filed 2026-08-28) — Juan De Dios Olivera-Romo petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his cancellation-of-removal application, arguing his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen wife. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition, finding the BIA did not err in concluding the claimed hardship did not meet the legal standard.
• In plain terms Juan De Dios Olivera-Romo's appeal of a denied removal cancellation, based on claimed hardship to his U.S. citizen wife, failed because the hardship didn't meet the legal standard.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-60615 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-60615-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Davis-Clewis v. Veterans Affairs (No. 26-10083; filed 2026-08-28) — Vera Davis-Clewis appealed a time-barred dismissal of her civil action against the Department of Veterans Affairs and moved to proceed in forma pauperis, arguing equitable tolling warranted review of her discrimination claims. The Fifth Circuit denied her motion and dismissed the appeal as frivolous, finding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
• In plain terms Vera Davis-Clewis's appeal of a time-barred dismissal of her discrimination case against the Department of Veterans Affairs was dismissed as frivolous.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10083 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10083-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Diaz Moran v. Cisneros (No. 26-40312; filed 2026-08-28) — Ervin Alonso Diaz Moran, a Nicaraguan citizen in detention, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition and moved for release pending appeal, appointed counsel, and in forma pauperis status. The Fifth Circuit granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his motions for release pending appeal and appointed counsel.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit granted Ervin Alonso Diaz Moran's request to proceed without paying court fees but denied his requests for release pending appeal and a court-appointed lawyer.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-40312 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-40312-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• McDonald v. US (No. 21-01114; filed 2026-08-28) — Matthew McDonald appealed the district court's handling of his successive collateral attack challenging his conviction for armed bank robbery, carjacking, and related offenses from the 1990s. The district court vacated an ACCA-enhanced life sentence and resentenced him to 120 months on that count, but retained a concurrent life sentence for carjacking. McDonald sought full resentencing on appeal.
• In plain terms A man challenged his 1990s conviction for armed bank robbery and carjacking; the lower court reduced one sentence to 10 years but kept his life sentence for carjacking, and he appealed for complete resentencing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-21-01114 / USCOURTS-ca1-21-01114-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Velez-Ramirez (No. 24-01049; filed 2026-08-28) — A Puerto Rico police officer was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) after agreeing to help a woman charged with marijuana possession avoid criminal conviction in exchange for sex. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the value of assistance in avoiding criminal proceedings satisfied the statutory $5,000 threshold for the offense.
• In plain terms A Puerto Rico police officer was convicted of accepting sexual favors to help someone facing marijuana charges avoid prosecution, a value meeting the $5,000 threshold for the crime.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-24-01049 / USCOURTS-ca1-24-01049-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Citation Insurance Company v. Broan-NuTone LLC, et al (No. 25-01426; filed 2026-08-28) — An insurance company sued manufacturers of a bathroom exhaust fan and motor for negligence and implied warranty breach following a fire in the plaintiff's home in September 2020. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, which the First Circuit affirmed.
• In plain terms An insurance company lost its lawsuit against bathroom fan manufacturers for negligence and warranty breach after a 2020 home fire.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01426 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01426-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (No. 25-01043; filed 2026-03-12) — A jury found military contractor CACI Premier Technology liable for conspiracy to commit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison, awarding each of three plaintiffs $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict.
• In plain terms A jury found a military contractor liable for torturing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib and awarded each of three prisoners $3 million and $11 million; an appeals court upheld the verdict.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (No. 25-01043; filed 2026-08-28) — Following the Supreme Court's decision in Cisco Systems Inc. v. Doe I, which effectively overruled the Sosa framework for Alien Tort Statute liability, the Fourth Circuit reversed its prior affirmance and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice. The court concluded that claims for conspiracy to commit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are no longer cognizable under the ATS.
• In plain terms After the Supreme Court changed the law on alien tort claims, an appeals court reversed its earlier decision and sent the case back for dismissal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (No. 25-01043; filed 2026-08-28) — Following the Supreme Court's decision in Cisco Systems Inc. v. Doe I, which effectively overruled the Sosa framework for Alien Tort Statute liability, the Fourth Circuit reversed its prior affirmance and remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice. The court concluded that claims for conspiracy to commit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are no longer cognizable under the ATS.
• In plain terms After the Supreme Court changed the law on alien tort claims, an appeals court reversed its earlier decision and sent the case back for dismissal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01043-2 (opens in a new tab)
• Curtis Murdock, III v. Ironplanet, Inc. (No. 25-01142; filed 2026-08-28) — Curtis Sterling Murdock appealed the dismissal of his amended complaint against Ironplanet, Inc. and three individuals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Murdock forfeited appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation and by failing to adequately preserve issues on appeal.
• In plain terms A man's lawsuit against a company was dismissed; he appealed but forfeited his right to appeal by failing to object to the magistrate's recommendation.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01142 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01142-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

• JACQUES V. BLANCHE (No. 23-3015; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decisions that reversed two grants of withholding of removal. The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were violated when the government mailed notices of appeal to incorrect detention addresses without taking reasonable steps to provide proper notice. The case was remanded to the BIA to re-notice the appeals and provide further proceedings.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit granted review because the petitioner's due process rights were violated by incorrect mailing of appeal notices, and remanded for new notice.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-23-3015 / USCOURTS-ca9-23-3015-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LA INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. V. PRESTIGE BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. (No. 24-3776; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit panel denied rehearing en banc in a Robinson-Patman Act case affirming a jury verdict that found Prestige liable for offering wholesale distributors a higher price for Clear Eyes eye drops than it offered to Costco, resulting in over $1 million in treble damages and attorney fees. A dissenting opinion argued the majority's ruling allowing liability based on minimal displaced sales rather than substantial competitive injury contradicted Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split.
• In plain terms A court upheld a verdict against a company for charging wholesalers higher prices than it charged Costco, resulting in over $1 million in total damages.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-3776 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-3776-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LA INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. V. PRESTIGE BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. (No. 24-5009; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit panel denied rehearing en banc in a Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination case involving Clear Eyes eye drops, affirming that Prestige liable for offering a 5% discount to Costco that was not extended to wholesale distributors. The panel's decision allowed liability findings based on proof of lost sales without requiring substantial injury to each plaintiff's competitive ability, prompting dissenting judges to argue the ruling departed from established precedent.
• In plain terms A court upheld a price discrimination verdict against a company for offering Costco a discount not extended to wholesale distributors.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-5009 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-5009-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LA INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. V. PRESTIGE BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. (No. 24-5227; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit denied en banc rehearing in a Robinson-Patman Act case in which it had affirmed a jury verdict against Prestige for price discrimination in the sale of Clear Eyes eye drops to different classes of purchasers. The panel's affirmance resulted in awards exceeding $1 million in treble damages and attorney fees, with dissenting judges contending the decision conflicted with Supreme Court guidance on competitive injury requirements.
• In plain terms A court upheld a price discrimination verdict and over $1 million in damages for charging different classes of buyers different prices for the same product.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-5227 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-5227-0 (opens in a new tab)
• MBUENO-VITA, ET AL. V. BLANCHE (No. 24-5472; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit granted Mbueno-Vita's petition for review, reversing the BIA's adverse credibility determination in his asylum case and finding the agency improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies and disregarded significant translation difficulties evident in the hearing transcripts. The court also found reversible legal error in the agency's denial of Convention Against Torture protection and remanded for further proceedings to determine his eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
• In plain terms A court reversed an asylum denial, finding the immigration agency wrongly relied on minor inconsistencies and ignored translation issues evident in the hearing record.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-5472 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-5472-0 (opens in a new tab)
• PARADA CALDERON V. BLANCHE (No. 24-7433; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit granted Parada Calderon's petition for review and remanded to the BIA with instructions to grant his motion to reopen his removal proceedings, finding the BIA erred by imposing a requirement for 'quantitative evidence' to establish Convention Against Torture protection and by failing to give reasoned consideration to his expert reports. The court concluded the record evidence supported Parada's reasonable likelihood of establishing a more-likely-than-not risk of torture if removed to El Salvador.
• In plain terms A court ordered reconsideration of a removal case, finding the agency wrongly required numerical proof of torture risk when the record showed real danger if deported.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-7433 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-7433-0 (opens in a new tab)
• PARADA CALDERON V. BLANCHE (No. 25-2204; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by imposing an improper requirement for quantitative evidence in Convention Against Torture protection claims and by failing to adequately consider expert reports. The court found that Alfredo Parada Calderon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of torture if removed to El Salvador and remanded for proceedings on his motion to reopen.
• In plain terms A court found the immigration agency erred by requiring numerical proof of torture risk and failing to properly consider expert evidence in a removal case.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-2204 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-2204-0 (opens in a new tab)
• KALSHIEX, LLC V. ASSAD, ET AL. (No. 25-7516; filed 2026-08-28) — The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dissolution of a preliminary injunction protecting KalshiEX, LLC's sports event contracts from Nevada gaming regulation. The court held that the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt Nevada's gaming statutes as applied to KalshiEX's contracts, which do not qualify as swaps under federal law and are prohibited by CFTC regulations on gaming contracts.
• In plain terms A court upheld Nevada's authority to regulate sports betting contracts, finding federal commodity law does not override state gaming rules for these contracts.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-7516 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-7516-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

• Norma Cisneros v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (No. 24-02982; filed 2026-08-28) — The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings for Nuance Communications in a lawsuit alleging violations of Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act over voice identification data collection. The court held that Nuance qualifies for an exemption as an affiliate of a financial institution subject to federal regulation under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The plaintiff's claims regarding inadequate notice of data retention policies and lack of written consent were therefore barred.
• In plain terms Nuance Communications won dismissal of a biometric privacy lawsuit; the court found Nuance qualifies for an exemption as an affiliate of a federally regulated financial institution.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-24-02982 / USCOURTS-ca7-24-02982-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Randy Talley v. Carl Gloede, et al (No. 25-01264; filed 2026-08-28) — Randy Talley, incarcerated on a probation hold, was assaulted by another inmate after a deputy officer ordered both to return to their cells pending further investigation of their dispute. Talley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officer, holding that a reasonable officer would not have perceived a substantial risk of serious harm given only sparse evidence of an imminent physical altercation.
• In plain terms A court upheld summary judgment for a deputy officer in a lawsuit by an inmate assaulted after the officer ordered both inmates back to their cells.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-01264 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-01264-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Amanda Sima v. Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, et al (No. 25-01729; filed 2026-08-28) — Amanda Sima sued attorneys Benesch and Justin Barker for legal malpractice and related claims regarding representation in a dispute over alleged misappropriation of her spill-proof cup lid design; during the engagement, Barker was negotiating employment with Nelson Mullins, which represented the opposing party. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint, finding Sima failed to adequately plead harm caused by the defendants' conduct as required for a legal malpractice claim.
• In plain terms A court dismissed a legal malpractice lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to show the attorneys' conduct caused her actual harm.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-01729 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-01729-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Alexis Rachwalski v. Todd W. Blanche, et al (No. 25-02848; filed 2026-08-28) — The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in Rachwalski's sex discrimination claim against the FBI, finding no evidence that her termination as a probationary agent was based on sex and that her hostile work environment evidence was time-barred. Rachwalski was offered resignation or termination after management documented performance issues including improper disclosure of confidential information and resistance to supervisory guidance.
• In plain terms A court ruled that an FBI agent's termination was not sex discrimination and that her hostile work environment claim was filed too late to consider.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-02848 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-02848-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• USA v. Jacobi Washington (No. 22-01953; filed 2026-08-28) — Jacobi Washington pleaded guilty to cocaine possession with intent to distribute and firearm possession in furtherance of drug trafficking, and was sentenced to 195 months as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Washington argued his prior Michigan drug conviction should not count as a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding state-law drug convictions qualify as controlled substance offenses under the applicable guideline.
• In plain terms Jacobi Washington's appeal of his drug trafficking and firearm possession sentence was rejected; his prior Michigan drug conviction qualifies as a controlled substance offense under sentencing guidelines.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-22-01953 / USCOURTS-ca6-22-01953-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Diamond Williams v. Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc. (No. 25-01836; filed 2026-08-28) — Diamond Williams sued a parent corporation and its subsidiary for employment discrimination, initially suing the parent before the district court dismissed the case and she subsequently sued the subsidiary. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the second lawsuit, holding that a parent-subsidiary relationship alone does not establish privity sufficient to bar a nonparty from relitigating a claim under Supreme Court precedent.
• In plain terms A court reversed dismissal of an employment discrimination lawsuit, ruling the plaintiff can sue the subsidiary separately even though she previously sued the parent company.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-01836 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-01836-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Luis Gomez-Echeverria, et al v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC, et al (No. 25-02080; filed 2026-08-28) — Five Guatemalan agricultural workers sued their employers under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and state law for charging illegal recruitment fees, maintaining squalid housing, underpaying wages, and threatening deportation. A jury awarded $105,000 in compensatory damages and $450,000 in punitive damages, which the Sixth Circuit affirmed against defendants' due process and statute of limitations challenges.
• In plain terms Five agricultural workers won a lawsuit against employers for illegal recruitment fees, poor housing, and wage theft, receiving $105,000 and $450,000 in damages.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-02080 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-02080-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Michael Hoffpowier (No. 25-05327; filed 2026-08-28) — Michael Hoffpowier was handcuffed during an investigatory stop based on suspected stalking of his estranged wife, and officers subsequently searched his vehicle and recovered an unregistered firearm with a silencer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of his motion to suppress, finding the handcuffing was a reasonable use of force based on flight risk during a lawful stop, and the vehicle search was justified by reasonable belief that evidence of stalking could be found in the vehicle.
• In plain terms A court upheld the search of a vehicle and seizure of a firearm from a man handcuffed during a stalking investigation based on reasonable suspicion of evidence in the car.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-05327 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-05327-0 (opens in a new tab)
• NetChoice, LLC v. Jonathan Skrmetti (No. 25-05660; filed 2026-08-28) — The Sixth Circuit vacated a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Tennessee's Protecting Children from Social Media Act, which requires age verification and parental consent for minors to create social media accounts. The appellate court found the plaintiff trade association demonstrated sufficient irreparable harm from potential First Amendment effects and compliance costs. The case was remanded for the district court to consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit vacated a district court's rejection of a preliminary injunction against Tennessee's law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors' social media accounts.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-05660 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-05660-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

• United States v. Moon Seals (No. 24-01028; filed 2025-10-17) — Malachi Moon Seals pleaded guilty to threatening members of Congress and their families through online posts. After receiving a probation sentence, he violated probation conditions by making similar threats, leading the district court to revoke probation and resentence him to 36 months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that while the district court erred in applying sentencing guidelines, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from that error.
• In plain terms A man convicted of making online threats against Congress members was resentenced to 3 years in prison after violating probation; the appeals court upheld the sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-24-01028 / USCOURTS-ca10-24-01028-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Moon Seals (No. 24-01028; filed 2026-08-28) — The Tenth Circuit sitting en banc reversed its prior decision and clarified sentencing procedure when a district court resentences a defendant after revoking probation. The court held that Chapter 7 sentencing guidelines for the probation violation must serve as the starting point, with Chapter 5 guidelines for the original offense considered only when deciding whether to vary from the Chapter 7 range. The case was remanded for resentencing under the correct framework.
• In plain terms The appeals court reversed its prior decision and clarified that when a judge re-sentences someone after revoking probation, different sentencing guidelines apply for the probation violation than the original offense.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-24-01028 / USCOURTS-ca10-24-01028-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs, et al (No. 25-01235; filed 2026-08-28) — Sasha Cronick sued Colorado Springs police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest and search during an incident at a motel in 2018. The district court sanctioned her for discovery violations and allowed the officers to present videos from unrelated police encounters, which the Tenth Circuit found constituted improper character evidence that affected the fairness of the trial. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for retrial, but affirmed the monetary sanctions.
• In plain terms A woman sued police for an unlawful 2018 arrest and search; the appeals court ruled unrelated police videos shown at trial were unfair evidence and ordered a new trial, but upheld the penalties.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-01235 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01235-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Underwood, et al v. Bank of America Corporation (No. 25-01248; filed 2026-08-28) — Erik Underwood appealed from a district court order addressing his violations of a protective order that restricted use of confidential discovery documents in his trademark infringement dispute with Bank of America. The court imposed sanctions and attorney's fees but did not establish a specific sum for all fee awards related to ongoing violations. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the fee award had not been reduced to a sum certain.
• In plain terms A man appealed sanctions and attorney fees for violating a protective order in a trademark case, but the appeals court dismissed the case because the fees were not yet set at a specific amount.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-01248 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01248-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Fischer, et al v. XTO Energy, et al (No. 25-07072; filed 2026-08-28) — The Fischer family pursued state court claims against Exxon Mobil for underpayment of oil and gas royalties, and Chieftain Royalty Company settled similar claims against XTO Energy. When the Fischers continued pursuing released claims in state court, the district court ordered them to show cause or cease those claims. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the show-cause order lacked finality—it neither found contempt nor imposed a specific sanction.
• In plain terms A family sued Exxon Mobil over underpaid oil royalties but the appeals court dismissed their appeal because the trial court's order to either stop the lawsuit or explain why was not yet final.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-07072 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-07072-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Lazo-Villalta v. Blanche (No. 25-09565; filed 2026-08-28) — Lilian Jhoan Lazo-Villalta, a Honduran citizen who entered the United States illegally, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection based on harm from gang members and a former partner. The immigration judge found her credible but denied the applications on grounds including untimeliness and failure to establish persecution or nexus to protected grounds. The Tenth Circuit dismissed her challenge to the untimely determination for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the denials of withholding and CAT relief.
• In plain terms A Honduran immigrant who entered illegally sought asylum and other deportation protections based on gang and partner violence; though the judge found her credible, the appeals court upheld denial for late filing and other grounds.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-09565 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-09565-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Lopez Ricardo v. Baltazar, et al (No. 26-01231; filed 2026-08-28) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted appellants' unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in a case involving immigration detention matters. The court also denied as moot appellants' motion to abate the appeal.
• In plain terms The appeals court dismissed an immigration detention appeal after the parties agreed to withdraw it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01231 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01231-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Seeley v. Crews (No. 26-01266; filed 2026-08-28) — The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Seeley's § 1983 lawsuit against a corrections officer for failure to comply with pleading requirements, finding that Seeley waived appellate review by failing to timely object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his other motion as moot.
• In plain terms A prisoner's lawsuit against a corrections officer was dismissed for failing to meet pleading rules; the appeals court upheld the dismissal, partly because he didn't timely object to the initial ruling.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01266 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01266-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Teague (No. 26-02117; filed 2026-08-28) — The Tenth Circuit dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus for failure to prosecute.
• In plain terms The appeals court dismissed a petition because the filing party did not pursue it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-02117 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-02117-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• Patrick Santoro, et al v. Tower Health (No. 24-03173; filed 2026-08-28) — The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a class action alleging that a healthcare provider violated federal privacy laws by allowing Meta Pixel tracking code to capture and share patients' health information without authorization. The court found that while plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing, they failed to provide sufficiently specific factual allegations about the health information captured despite three opportunities to amend their complaint.
• In plain terms A class action against a healthcare provider for tracking patients' health data without permission was dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't provide specific enough facts about what data was captured despite three chances to fix the complaint.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-24-03173 / USCOURTS-ca3-24-03173-0 (opens in a new tab)
• L. W. v. Jersey City Board of Education (No. 24-03252; filed 2026-08-28) — The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a school district in a special education case, finding that the plaintiff's claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the plaintiff's parents knew or should have known of the alleged violations within the applicable time period.
• In plain terms A school district won a special education case because the family's claims were filed too late under the two-year time limit for such lawsuits.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-24-03252 / USCOURTS-ca3-24-03252-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Elvis Ortiz (No. 25-01839; filed 2026-08-28) — The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of compassionate release for an inmate serving a life sentence for drug and racketeering offenses, holding that nonretroactive amendments to sentencing laws cannot constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release under federal law.
• In plain terms An inmate's request for early release based on recent changes to sentencing law was denied because those changes don't apply to sentences already handed down.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-25-01839 / USCOURTS-ca3-25-01839-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Gabriel Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, et al (No. 26-01150; filed 2026-08-28) — The Third Circuit affirmed District Court orders releasing two noncitizens from immigration detention, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention provision does not apply to individuals already present in the United States who entered without inspection. The court concluded their continued detention without bond hearings violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and, in one case, Fifth Amendment due process protections. The decision aligns with opinions from seven other federal circuits on the statutory interpretation of who qualifies as an applicant for admission under immigration law.
• In plain terms Two noncitizens were released from immigration detention because mandatory detention rules don't apply to people already in the U.S. who entered without inspection, following seven other appeals courts' interpretations.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-01150 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-01150-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Wanderson Lopes De Andrade v. Director Philadelphia Field Office Immigration, et al (No. 26-01454; filed 2026-08-28) — The Third Circuit affirmed District Court orders releasing two noncitizens from immigration detention, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention provision does not apply to individuals already present in the United States who entered without inspection. The court concluded their continued detention without bond hearings violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and, in one case, Fifth Amendment due process protections. The decision aligns with opinions from seven other federal circuits on the statutory interpretation of who qualifies as an applicant for admission under immigration law.
• In plain terms Two noncitizens were released from immigration detention because mandatory detention rules don't apply to people already in the U.S. who entered without inspection, following seven other appeals courts' interpretations.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-08-28)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-01454 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-01454-0 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 32174 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 2026-08-29 (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.

FEMA Press Releases

• Trump Administration Delivers Nearly $119 Million Through FEMA to Help Communities Recover from Recent Disasters and Strengthen Their Resilience Against Future Disasters in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-08-29 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)

VA News Releases

• Because they served: VA volunteers honored for community impact (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-08-29 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)

Roll-call votes the chambers themselves record on 2026-08-29, 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 2026-08-29, 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 2026-08-29. 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 2026-08-30T04:05:25Z · CREC: completed 2026-08-30T04:05:24Z · FR: completed 2026-08-30T04:05:26Z · PLAW: completed 2026-08-30T04:54:20Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-08-30T04:05:27Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 695 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 15 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: 129 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 2026-08-29.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (e85afbb). 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 2026-08-29; no upstream re-fetch is required (GUIDE.md §5).

Inference (GUIDE §6 r15, standing): The pipeline finalizes every publication day with or without an inference provider. Model layers are additive. When no inference was available for a day, the digest states that fact in its own prose and nothing more; the cause is operational detail recorded in the day's provenance and operations report, not in the published digest. The Coverage Statement's arithmetic reconciles regardless. Items are listed with their citations whether or not they were summarized. A day finalized without model layers is frozen like any other day; prose is not backfilled into a frozen digest.

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).