Daily Digest — 2026-09-05

Source: Congressional Record (CREC), issue observed 2026-09-05, covering proceedings of 2026-09-04. Published by govinfo 2026-09-05T11:15:24Z; observed by our collector 2026-09-05T11:43:20Z. Total issue size: 60 granule(s).

1.1 Senate

No Senate floor items met the selection thresholds. 4 floor granule(s) are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

1.2 House of Representatives

legislativearms certifications (model-generated key)executive communications (model-generated key)military notification (model-generated key)

In plain terms The House referred executive communications to committees, including a presidential military action notification against Iran and State Department arms certifications.

• Executive Communications, ETC. — The House took executive communications from the Speaker's table and referred them to committees, including a presidential notification of military action against Iran commenced on September 1, 2026, State Department certifications of proposed arms export licenses, and a National Park Service rule on powered micromobility devices. Multiple FAA final rules on airworthiness directives for aircraft and engines, amendments to Class D and E airspace designations, and standard instrument approach procedures were referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. These communications were received between August 14 and August 31, 2026, and referred pursuant to statutory procedures.
• In plain terms The House sent executive communications to committees, including military action notification against Iran, arms exports, aircraft safety rules, a parks mobility rule, and airspace changes, received between August 14-31, 2026.
• Included because: CREC-SEL-01 — floor item ≥ threshold floor time (21,403 characters) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: CREC-2026-09-04 / CREC-2026-09-04-pt1-PgH5513-10 (opens in a new tab)

1.3 Recorded Votes

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

Source: Congressional Bills (BILLS), text versions published 2026-09-05 to 2026-09-05.

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 3 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-09-05.

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 2026-09-05.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-09-05 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

judicialdrug smuggling (model-generated key)employment discrimination (model-generated key)immigration removal (model-generated key)

In plain terms Fifty-four appellate decisions spanning criminal convictions including drug smuggling and robbery, immigration removals, employment discrimination, property disputes, and labor 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

• Ronda L. Davis, et al v. DC (No. 24-07038; filed 2026-09-04) — The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the District in a Title VII employment discrimination case, holding that the District carried its burden of showing that two employment practices during a reduction-in-force were consistent with business necessity to address the District's legitimate need to reduce costs. The court defined the business necessity test as requiring only that an employment practice reasonably fit with the employer's legitimate interests, and found the plaintiffs failed to propose an adequate alternative practice that served the District's interests with less disparate impact.
• In plain terms A reduction-in-force was upheld as justified by the employer's legitimate need to reduce costs under Title VII.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-07038 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-07038-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ronda L. Davis, et al v. DC (No. 24-07039; filed 2026-09-04) — The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the District in a Title VII employment discrimination case, holding that the District carried its burden of showing that two employment practices during a reduction-in-force were consistent with business necessity to address the District's legitimate need to reduce costs. The court defined the business necessity test as requiring only that an employment practice reasonably fit with the employer's legitimate interests, and found the plaintiffs failed to propose an adequate alternative practice that served the District's interests with less disparate impact.
• In plain terms A reduction-in-force was upheld as justified by the employer's legitimate need to reduce costs under Title VII.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-07039 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-07039-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Eric Flannery, et al v. Mark Eckenwiler, et al (No. 24-07168; filed 2026-09-04) — The District of Columbia Circuit reversed in part the district court's dismissal of Eric Flannery's First Amendment retaliation claim against Advisory Neighborhood Commission members, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged the commissioners protested his restaurant's liquor license renewal in retaliation for his public criticism of COVID-19 pandemic policies. The court affirmed dismissal regarding Flannery's claim that his restaurant's noncompliance with those policies constituted protected conduct.
• In plain terms A restaurant owner stated a First Amendment retaliation claim by alleging commissioners protested his license renewal in retaliation for pandemic policy criticism.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-24-07168 / USCOURTS-caDC-24-07168-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. HHS, et al (No. 25-05133; filed 2026-09-04) — Vertex Pharmaceuticals sought an advisory opinion from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding a Fertility Support Program that would provide up to $70,000 to patients with federal healthcare coverage to help offset fertility impacts from a gene therapy for hereditary blood disorders. HHS delayed over one year before issuing an unfavorable opinion concluding the program violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and Beneficiary Inducement Statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Anti-Kickback Statute violation but reversed, finding HHS failed to adequately explain its Beneficiary Inducement Statute determination and that the agency's advisory opinion timing regulations unlawfully circumvent statutory deadlines.
• In plain terms A fertility program violated anti-kickback law; the agency failed to adequately explain its beneficiary inducement determination and violated statutory deadlines for advisory opinions.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-05133 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-05133-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Giffords v. FEC (No. 25-05188; filed 2026-09-04) — Giffords and the Campaign Legal Center filed Federal Election Commission complaints against National Rifle Association entities alleging federal campaign finance violations; when the FEC did not act within the 120-day statutory period, Giffords sued to compel action and subsequently filed a citizen suit against the NRA. The National Rifle Association, as a nonparty to the original action, later sought relief from the orders and judgment enabling the citizen suit through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the NRA's appeal, holding that only parties to a lawsuit may appeal and the NRA did not use applicable procedural mechanisms to become a party.
• In plain terms The NRA's appeal was dismissed because only parties to a lawsuit may appeal and the NRA did not properly become a party.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-05188 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-05188-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• WPX Energy Williston, LLC v. Honorable B.J. Jones (No. 25-01083; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this case. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the judgment entry date.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01083 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01083-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Daniel Medina-Martinez (No. 25-01653; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this case. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the judgment entry date.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01653 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01653-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Myles Jones (No. 25-01927; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this case. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the judgment entry date.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01927 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01927-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Francis Dubray (No. 25-02281; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this case. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the judgment entry date.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-02281 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-02281-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Michael Sack v. City of St. Louis, et al (No. 25-03044; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit issued an opinion and entered judgment in this case. Petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the judgment entry date.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-03044 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03044-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Jamestown Villas v. State Farm (No. 25-03154; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Jamestown Villas v. State Farm and entered judgment in accordance with that opinion. The notice advises counsel of the 14-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc and reminds them of procedural requirements for all post-submission filings.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision in Jamestown Villas v. State Farm; requests to reconsider must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-03154 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03154-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Khemall Jokhoo (No. 26-01173; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in United States v. Khemall Jokhoo and entered judgment accordingly. The notice advises the appellant of the 14-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc and of procedural requirements under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; the appealing party has 14 days to request reconsideration.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-26-01173 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01173-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ijeoma Chanthavong v. Todd Blanche, et al (No. 26-01178; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Ijeoma Chanthavong v. Todd Blanche, et al and entered judgment the same day. The notice advises the pro se litigant of the 45-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc and compliance with applicable procedural rules.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; the self-represented party has 45 days to request reconsideration.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-26-01178 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01178-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Joshua Whiteley v. C. Humphrey (No. 26-01214; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Joshua Whiteley v. C. Humphrey and entered judgment the same day. The notice advises the pro se litigant of the 45-day deadline for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc and of required compliance with procedural rules for any further filings.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit has issued its decision; the self-represented party has 45 days to request reconsideration.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-26-01214 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01214-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Rafael Cendan v. Jose Trujillo, et al (No. 22-10089; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed qualified immunity for police officers in an excessive force case, holding that the plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established constitutional right that would have informed a reasonable officer that the force used during the resistance phase of an arrest was unconstitutional.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld police officer immunity in an excessive force case, finding no clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable officer would have known was violated.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-22-10089 / USCOURTS-ca11-22-10089-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Curtis Davis, et al v. Mar-Jac Poultry, AL, LLC. (No. 24-12888; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and partial denial of attorney fees, finding no reversible error.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of class certification for the lawsuit.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-12888 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-12888-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Samuel Ghee, IV v. Alabama Power Company, et al (No. 25-11190; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court's dismissal of claims regarding electrical service access and remanded for proceedings consistent with providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissal with prejudice, as the district court had not clearly explained whether dismissal was based on the complaint being a shotgun pleading, failing to state a claim, or both.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit overturned the dismissal of electrical service access claims and ordered the lower court to let the plaintiff revise his complaint before deciding.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-11190 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-11190-0 (opens in a new tab)
• State of Florida, et al v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al (No. 25-12095; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal as moot of a lawsuit challenging the 2024 Department of Health and Human Services nondiscrimination rule regarding health programs and activities, holding that the case became moot while the appeal was pending.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging a 2024 federal nondiscrimination rule as the case became legally moot while the appeal was pending.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12095 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12095-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Scott Carpenter, Jr. (No. 25-13353; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses, holding that even assuming the government breached its plea agreement promise to recommend a within-guidelines sentence, the defendant failed to show plain error because the court ultimately sentenced him within the guideline range, and his challenge to a motion to suppress was waived by his unconditional guilty plea.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld convictions for robbery using force or threats and firearm offenses, finding a sentence within the guideline range was proper.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13353 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13353-0 (opens in a new tab)
• William Covert v. Arielle Hacking, et al (No. 25-13464; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's dismissal of William Covert's federal lawsuit against Utah state officials and an individual. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Covert's claims challenging a state court judgment in his defamation case and the constitutionality of Utah's attorney fees statute, but did not bar his defamation claim against the individual. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the defamation count.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit partly upheld and partly overturned the dismissal, finding federal courts cannot review his state court defamation judgment but may address his claim against an individual.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13464 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13464-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Brady Adams (No. 25-13483; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of compassionate release for Brady Lavick Adams, who is serving a life sentence for kidnapping his estranged wife. The court found that Adams remained a danger to the victim and the community based on the violent circumstances of his offense and his criminal history, which rendered him ineligible for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of early release on compassionate grounds for someone serving a life sentence for kidnapping.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13483 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13483-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Rene Benitez (No. 25-13989; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit granted summary affirmance of a district court's denial of Rene Benitez's sentence modification motion. Benitez failed to file his motion within 120 days of the appellate affirmation of his conviction as required by former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), depriving the district court of jurisdiction.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of a sentence modification motion because it was filed more than 120 days after the conviction was upheld.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13989 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13989-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Francisco Zendejas v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 26-11935; filed 2026-09-04) — The Eleventh Circuit granted summary denial of Francisco Zendejas's petition for review of a removal order issued by an immigration judge. The court held that Zendejas failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit denied the immigration appeal because the petitioner did not file a required appeal with the immigration board.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-11935 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-11935-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

• USA v. Nyandoro (No. 23-10579; filed 2025-08-04) — Kenleone Joe Nyandoro pleaded guilty to firearm possession while unlawfully using marijuana under a plea agreement requiring successful completion of a rehabilitation program for charge dismissal. After failing to complete the program, he moved to withdraw his plea on constitutional grounds, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of a plea withdrawal by someone who failed to complete a required rehabilitation program after agreeing to do so.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-23-10579 / USCOURTS-ca5-23-10579-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Nyandoro (No. 23-10579; filed 2026-09-04) — Following the Supreme Court's Hunter I decision on appeal waivers and miscarriage of justice exceptions, Kenleone Joe Nyandoro's Fifth Circuit appeal was remanded for reconsideration. The court again affirmed that his appeal waiver bars his constitutional challenge to the statute under which he pleaded guilty, finding he did not satisfy Hunter I's high bar for the miscarriage of justice exception.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit again upheld the appeal waiver that bars the constitutional challenge to the statute under which he pleaded guilty.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-23-10579 / USCOURTS-ca5-23-10579-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Thomas v. Upshaw (No. 24-40691; filed 2026-09-04) — Jewell Thomas filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and conspiracy to deprive him of constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his claims for failure to state a claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding Thomas failed to sufficiently allege disability-based discrimination, that he received medical treatment for his condition, and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of disability discrimination and civil rights claims, finding the plaintiff failed to state a claim and defendants had immunity.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-24-40691 / USCOURTS-ca5-24-40691-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sterling v. City of Jackson (No. 24-60370; filed 2025-11-17) — Residents of Jackson, Mississippi sued the city alleging lead contamination of the public water supply and false statements about water safety, claiming violations of substantive due process rights. A Fifth Circuit panel found the complaint plausibly stated a violation of the right to bodily autonomy through knowing exposure to contaminated water accompanied by false assurances of safety, reversing in part and remanding the district court's dismissal.
• In plain terms A Fifth Circuit panel reversed the partial dismissal of water contamination claims, finding residents plausibly stated a constitutional violation of bodily autonomy rights.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-24-60370 / USCOURTS-ca5-24-60370-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sterling v. City of Jackson (No. 24-60370; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc and vacating a prior panel opinion, affirmed the district court's dismissal of residents' substantive due process claims in a Jackson water contamination case. The court held that neither the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water nor the right to truthful information from public officials are rights deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition as required for Fourteenth Amendment protection.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit, in a full court review, overturned the panel decision and upheld the dismissal of constitutional claims about water contamination and false statements.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-24-60370 / USCOURTS-ca5-24-60370-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Starbucks v. NLRB (No. 24-60653; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part the NLRB's determination that Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act through statements made by store managers at a Wichita location regarding unionization activities. The court granted enforcement of the Board's order requiring Starbucks to cease the unlawful conduct and post a remedial notice on one threat of reprisal finding while denying enforcement on other determinations.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit partly upheld an order finding Starbucks violated labor law through statements about unionization, enforcing most of the remedial requirements.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-24-60653 / USCOURTS-ca5-24-60653-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Whitestone Uptown v. Whitestone REIT (No. 25-10947; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that WROP, as guarantor of Uptown Tower's loan, was entitled to statutory subrogation after paying approximately $13 million to discharge the debtor's obligations when the debtor subsequently filed bankruptcy. The court upheld the priority status of WROP's claim in the bankruptcy estate following the guarantor's payment.
• In plain terms A guarantor who paid $13 million to discharge a debtor's loan obligations is entitled to priority payment from the bankruptcy estate.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10947 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10947-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Lewis (No. 25-30586; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by convicted felons, is constitutional as applied to Lewis based on his home invasion conviction, which demonstrates he poses a clear threat of violence consistent with the nation's historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals. The court held that the violent nature of the predicate offense supports the firearm prohibition.
• In plain terms A federal law banning convicted felons from possessing firearms is constitutional as applied to a defendant with a home invasion conviction.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30586 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30586-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Singleton (No. 25-30657; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Singleton's motion to reduce his life sentence for carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found no abuse of discretion and held that the district court properly considered sentencing factors including the defendant's age, culpability, and prison disciplinary history.
• In plain terms A motion to reduce a defendant's life sentence for carjacking was properly denied by the trial court.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30657 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30657-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Lucid Group USA v. Johnston (No. 25-50319; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed that Texas's law prohibiting motor vehicle manufacturers from selling vehicles directly to consumers does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses, holding the state has a rational basis for the classification to prevent vertical integration and protect consumers against fraudulent or unfair practices. The court rejected the manufacturer's as-applied challenge as based on the same legal arguments previously rejected in facial challenge precedent.
• In plain terms Texas's ban on vehicle manufacturers selling directly to consumers is constitutional to prevent vertical integration and protect consumers.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50319 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50319-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Aguilar-Guerrero (No. 25-50737; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's 72-month above-guidelines prison sentence imposed on Aguilar-Guerrero for illegal reentry, finding the sentence substantively reasonable and reflecting proper consideration of sentencing factors without clear error in judicial balancing. The court held the sentence does not fail to account for relevant factors or improperly weigh sentencing considerations.
• In plain terms A 72-month prison sentence for illegal reentry was affirmed as reasonably reflecting sentencing factors.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50737 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50737-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Miranda-Sauceda (No. 25-50899; filed 2026-09-04) — Jaime Rene Miranda-Sauceda appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after removal, arguing the district court failed to adequately explain an above-guidelines sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the explanation sufficient for appellate review and that Miranda-Sauceda's criminal history supported the imposition of supervised release as a measure of deterrence.
• In plain terms A sentence for illegal reentry was affirmed; the explanation was adequate and criminal history supported supervised release.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50899 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50899-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Okene v. Blanche (No. 25-60559; filed 2026-09-04) — Wilberforce Okene, a Nigerian national who overstayed a business visa, sought cancellation or special cancellation of removal based on his wife's medical condition and a former wife's domestic abuse. The Fifth Circuit adopted a substantial-evidence standard of review for hardship determinations under the immigration statute following recent Supreme Court precedent, and denied his petition for review.
• In plain terms A man who overstayed his business visa sought to stay in the country citing his wife's health and abuse from a former wife, but the court denied his request.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-60559 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-60559-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Weatherford Indep Sch Dist v. K.L. (No. 26-10252; filed 2026-09-04) — A state hearing officer ordered Weatherford Independent School District to provide residential placement as compensatory education relief to K.L. pending appellate proceedings. The Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to enforce the stay-put provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and consider the state officer's placement order and pending summary judgment motions.
• In plain terms The court remanded to enforce a stay-put provision requiring a school district to provide residential placement as compensatory education pending appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10252 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10252-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Marbury v. United National Insurance (No. 26-30005; filed 2026-09-04) — Annie Marbury sought additional insurance recovery for a church-owned property damaged by Hurricane Laura, claiming an insurable interest through personal financial contributions. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded a second summary judgment, holding that the district court improperly disregarded Marbury's affidavit testimony without analyzing whether it was conclusory or vague.
• In plain terms A district court improperly disregarded a homeowner's affidavit testimony in dismissing an insurance recovery case for hurricane damage.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-30005 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-30005-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Aguirre-Barra (No. 26-50127; filed 2026-09-04) — Orlando Everado Aguirre-Barra appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, challenging the recidivism enhancement in the statute as unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit granted the government's motion for summary affirmance, finding the argument foreclosed by binding Supreme Court and circuit precedent, and affirmed the judgment.
• In plain terms A conviction for illegal reentry was affirmed; the recidivism enhancement is constitutional under established precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50127 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50127-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Snell v. 21st Mortgage Corp (No. 26-60059; filed 2026-09-04) — Curtis Snell and his wife appealed a summary judgment upholding a foreclosure sale of their Mississippi property after they defaulted on mortgage payments and 21st Mortgage refused their partial payments. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the notice of foreclosure sale properly posted with all required information and that the lender lawfully refused partial payments insufficient to cure the default under Mississippi law.
• In plain terms A foreclosure sale was upheld; the notice was properly posted and the lender lawfully refused insufficient partial payments.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-60059 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60059-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• US v. Gonzalez (No. 24-01013; filed 2026-09-04) — José Manuel González pleaded guilty to four drug-related counts arising from a cocaine smuggling venture off Puerto Rico in December 2022, in which a vessel carrying 627 kilograms of cocaine was intercepted near Puerto Rico. He was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and appealed on grounds that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, challenging the application of a captain enhancement and the denial of a minor participant role adjustment. The appellate court affirmed the captain enhancement but agreed that remand was warranted on the minor participant role issue.
• In plain terms González pleaded guilty to four drug charges in a cocaine smuggling case, was sentenced to 135 months, and appealed; the court upheld a leadership-role sentence increase but said the adjustment for a minor role should be reconsidered.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-24-01013 / USCOURTS-ca1-24-01013-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• US v. Richard Rund (No. 24-01958; filed 2026-09-04) — The Fourth Circuit affirmed a civil judgment against Richard Rund for $2,915,633 in penalties for willfully failing to report foreign bank accounts as required by the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. The court rejected Rund's argument that summary judgment was improper on willfulness and held that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to civil FBAR penalties.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit upheld a civil penalty of $2,915,633 against someone who willfully failed to report foreign bank accounts.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-24-01958 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-01958-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Chad Lester (No. 25-04310; filed 2026-09-04) — Chad Lester, a supervisory correctional officer at a West Virginia jail, was convicted of witness tampering in connection with the death of an inmate in custody, conspiracy to witness tamper, and making false statements to the FBI. He received a 210-month prison sentence. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence after reviewing his contentions regarding evidentiary rulings and sentencing procedures.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction and 210-month prison sentence of a jail officer for witness tampering and making false statements to the FBI.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-04310 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-04310-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

• TRIGUEROS QUIZAR V. BLANCHE (No. 24-4847; filed 2026-09-04) — The Ninth Circuit granted Angel Trigueros Quizar's petition for review and remanded, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in requiring corroborating documentary evidence to support his claim that a flat tire caused him to be five minutes late to his removal hearing. The court found that under its precedent, the agency must accept a pro se petitioner's factual allegations as true unless inherently unbelievable, and his claim of an exceptional circumstance satisfied that standard.
• In plain terms Immigration officials must accept a defendant's factual claim of a flat tire causing lateness to his removal hearing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-4847 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-4847-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

• USA v. Robert Pennington, Jr. (No. 23-03315; filed 2026-09-04) — The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of Robert Pennington's motion to suppress drugs found during a traffic stop and his motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution or selective enforcement. After an initial stop for speeding that resulted in a warning, Pennington was stopped an hour later for improper lane usage, and a canine sniff during that stop alerted to crack cocaine in his vehicle; the court found the second stop was justified by independent observations and did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop.
• In plain terms A motion to suppress drugs found in a vehicle was properly denied; the traffic stop was justified and not unreasonably prolonged.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-23-03315 / USCOURTS-ca7-23-03315-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• Summit Locations, LLC, et al v. Bd of Trustees, Bath Twp, Ohio, et al (No. 25-03833; filed 2026-09-04) — The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Summit Locations' challenge to Bath Township's zoning regulations that prohibited billboards, finding that the company lacked standing to challenge the ban on off-premises signs because other zoning restrictions independently barred its proposed billboard. The court held that granting relief would not redress the company's injury since separate height and structural restrictions would still prevent construction.
• In plain terms A zoning regulation banning billboards was upheld; other regulations independently prevented the proposed billboard regardless.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-03833 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-03833-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

• CBW Bank v. FDIC, et al (No. 25-03056; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit grants a joint motion to dismiss the appeal in CBW Bank's case against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and related officials.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal in CBW Bank's case against the FDIC.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-03056 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-03056-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Williams v. Crane, et al (No. 25-03211; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of a pro se federal appeal seeking relief in connection with a Kansas state child custody proceeding, applying the Younger abstention doctrine to decline federal jurisdiction.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a federal appeal related to a Kansas state child custody case, finding federal courts should not intervene in ongoing state proceedings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-03211 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-03211-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Cook, et al v. Albany County Board of County Commissioners, et al (No. 25-08047; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit affirms summary judgment against two former county employees who appealed employment discrimination and retaliation claims, finding the appellants waived appellate review through inadequate briefing that failed to challenge the district court's dispositive conclusions.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit upheld a judgment against two former county employees for employment discrimination and retaliation, finding they failed to properly challenge it in their appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-08047 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-08047-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Norcutt (No. 25-08056; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's denial of an extension of time to appeal from the denial of a federal inmate's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit upheld the denial of extra time for a federal inmate to appeal a denied request for early release on compassionate grounds.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-08056 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-08056-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Hernandez Hernandez v. Blanche (No. 25-09561; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit denies review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of an application for cancellation of removal, finding the immigration judge properly determined that the applicant failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen son.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit denied review of an immigration decision denying the applicant cancellation of removal, finding he failed to show exceptional hardship to his U.S. citizen son.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-09561 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-09561-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Aigbekaen v. United States (No. 26-01195; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of prosecution pursuant to circuit rules.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not pursue it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01195 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01195-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Shiguango-Yumbo v. Blanche (No. 26-09557; filed 2026-09-04) — The Tenth Circuit dismissed a petition for review because the petitioner failed to file an entry of appearance, an opening brief, or pay the filing fee or request fee waiver by the court's deadline, and was no longer at the listed address with no forwarding address provided.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit dismissed the immigration petition because the petitioner failed to file required paperwork and could not be located.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-09557 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-09557-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• Urve Maggitti v. John Capuzzi, Sr., et al (No. 23-03274; filed 2026-09-04) — The Third Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of Urve Maggitti's declaratory judgment action on Younger abstention grounds and the denial of her recusal and disqualification motions. The court found that Maggitti failed to identify any bias or prejudice by the judge and that her objections stemmed only from adverse rulings rather than actual bias.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of an action involving state court proceedings and denied motions to remove the judge, finding no bias.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-04)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-23-03274 / USCOURTS-ca3-23-03274-0 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 32614 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 2026-09-05 (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.

DHS News Releases

• Biden-Appointed Activist Judge in California Releases MS-13 Gang Member Wanted for Murder in El Salvador (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-05 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)

NASA News Releases

• APOD: 2026 September 5 – Chasing the Moon’s Shadow (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-05 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)

U.S. Attorneys News (email)

• It’s a New Day in Fort Worth: Federal operation aims to remove violent offenders from the community (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-05 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 email bulletin to this project's subscription, captured and DKIM-verified

VA News Releases

• Time is brain: Baltimore VA earns primary stroke center status (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-05 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)

Also observed this day, not listed above: 3 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 2026-09-05, 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 2026-09-05, 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 2026-09-05. 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 2026-09-06T04:04:35Z · CREC: completed 2026-09-06T04:04:34Z · FR: completed 2026-09-06T04:04:36Z · PLAW: completed 2026-09-06T04:21:13Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-09-06T04:04:37Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• CREC-EX-01: floor granule below floor-time threshold — 24 item(s)
• CREC-EX-02: extensions/daily-digest sections (counted) — 35 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 466 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 6 item(s)
• AGENCYPR-EX-01: release dated outside this day by the agency (feed backfill / newly activated source) — counted, not listed — 3 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: 208 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 2026-09-05.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (8f6562c). 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 2026-09-05; 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).