Daily Digest — 2026-09-12

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 2026-09-12 to 2026-09-12.

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 1 are accounted for in the Coverage Statement.

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-09-12.

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 2026-09-12.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-09-12 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 trafficking (model-generated key)employment disputes (model-generated key)immigration (model-generated key)

In plain terms 61 federal appeals led by criminal drug trafficking and immigration convictions; the rest cover employment disputes including a $7.8 million verdict, patents, and insurance 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

• People of the State of Michigan v. DOE, et al (No. 25-01159; filed 2026-09-11) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a Department of Energy order directing Consumers Energy Company to continue operating its J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in Michigan beyond its scheduled retirement. The court held that the Department's emergency authority under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act is limited to circumstances where the Department identifies a risk of substantial energy supply shortfall requiring immediate federal action, and found that the circumstances DOE identified did not meet this standard. States of Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, along with environmental organizations, had petitioned for review of the Department's order.
• In plain terms A federal appeals court blocked the Department of Energy's order to keep a coal plant running, ruling the agency's emergency powers don't apply in this case.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01159 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01159-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sierra Club, et al v. DOE, et al (No. 25-01160; filed 2026-09-11) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a Department of Energy order directing Consumers Energy Company to continue operating its J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in Michigan beyond its scheduled retirement. The court held that the Department's emergency authority under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act is limited to circumstances where the Department identifies a risk of substantial energy supply shortfall requiring immediate federal action, and found that the circumstances DOE identified did not meet this standard. States of Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, along with environmental organizations, had petitioned for review of the Department's order.
• In plain terms A federal appeals court blocked the Department of Energy's order to keep a coal plant running, ruling the agency's emergency powers don't apply in this case.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01160 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01160-0 (opens in a new tab)
• State of Minnesota, et al v. Christopher Wright, et al (No. 25-01162; filed 2026-09-11) — The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a Department of Energy order directing Consumers Energy Company to continue operating its J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in Michigan beyond its scheduled retirement. The court held that the Department's emergency authority under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act is limited to circumstances where the Department identifies a risk of substantial energy supply shortfall requiring immediate federal action, and found that the circumstances DOE identified did not meet this standard. States of Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, along with environmental organizations, had petitioned for review of the Department's order.
• In plain terms A federal appeals court blocked the Department of Energy's order to keep a coal plant running, ruling the agency's emergency powers don't apply in this case.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01162 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01162-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• Burton Kettner v. Sharron Castleberry, et al (No. 25-03021; filed 2026-09-11) — The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion and entered judgment in the case of Burton Kettner v. Sharron Castleberry. The notice informs the appellant of filing deadlines for petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc within 14 days of the judgment date.
• In plain terms The court issued judgment and notified the appellant that petitions for rehearing must be filed within 14 days.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-03021 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03021-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Ezell Lucas (No. 26-01859; filed 2026-09-11) — Ezell Lucas pled guilty to a drug offense under a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. He appealed his sentence with counsel challenging its reasonableness, and Lucas raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Eighth Circuit found the appeal waiver valid and enforceable, and dismissed the appeal.
• In plain terms A man who pleaded guilty to a drug offense and agreed not to appeal was dismissed from court when he tried to appeal anyway, since his agreement barred him from doing so.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-26-01859 / USCOURTS-ca8-26-01859-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• USA v. Tavares Bender (No. 25-10404; filed 2026-09-11) — Tavares Bender appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon and 125-month sentence, challenging the admission of his prior felon-in-possession conviction, the denial of a mistrial motion regarding prosecutorial comments about his silence, and the reasonableness of his sentence. The court affirmed all findings, holding the prior conviction properly admitted to establish knowledge, the prosecutor's comments did not require mistrial after a limiting instruction, and the sentence was reasonable.
• In plain terms A man convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon appealed his 125-month sentence; the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-10404 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-10404-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Alvaro Montero-Monsalvo (No. 25-12121; filed 2026-09-11) — Alvaro Montero-Monsalvo appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine aboard a vessel under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, challenging the district court's jurisdiction and raising constitutional concerns. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that jurisdiction was proper through Venezuela's consent to United States enforcement and that Congress has constitutional authority to punish drug-trafficking conspiracies on the high seas.
• In plain terms A man convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel challenged the court's jurisdiction; the court upheld the conviction.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12121 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12121-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Patrick Byrne v. Goodwill South Florida TEP, LLC (No. 25-12295; filed 2026-09-11) — Patrick Byrne appealed summary judgment in a Fair Labor Standards Act claim against Goodwill for unpaid overtime, arguing his sworn testimony and declaration established material factual disputes about working uncompensated hours before and after clocking in and during lunch breaks. The court affirmed the exclusion of late-produced text messages but vacated the judgment, finding his deposition and declaration testimony created genuine disputes sufficient to proceed to trial.
• In plain terms A worker appealed dismissal of his overtime wage claim; the court found disputed facts warranting trial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12295 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12295-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Johnny Smith, Jr. (No. 25-12333; filed 2026-09-11) — Johnny Smith Jr., serving a 120-month sentence for methamphetamine distribution and firearm possession, appealed denial of his motion to suppress evidence, challenging the search warrant's validity, the investigatory stop, and pre-Miranda statements. The court affirmed, holding the search warrant had probable cause based on a confidential informant tip corroborated by a controlled buy, officers had reasonable suspicion for the vehicle stop, and the public safety exception permitted questioning about a firearm before Miranda warnings.
• In plain terms A man serving time for methamphetamine and firearm crimes appealed the court's acceptance of evidence; the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12333 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12333-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Charles Chauncy v. Dennis Gorden (No. 25-13289; filed 2026-09-11) — Charles Chauncy appealed summary judgment in a tortious interference suit against Dennis Gorden over a disputed estate involving three wills executed by Addison McNairy. The district court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations for tortious interference with an expectancy, finding Chauncy's claim accrued in July 2019 when the probate court probated McNairy's 2018 will, making the March 2024 filing time-barred. The court affirmed.
• In plain terms A man appealed dismissal of his lawsuit over a disputed estate; the court upheld it because he filed too late.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13289 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13289-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Dennis Campbell v. James Muller, et al (No. 25-13445; filed 2026-09-11) — James Muller and Maria Shelton, non-signatories to an employment arbitration agreement, appealed denial of their motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by Dennis Campbell, a former company vice president. The court affirmed that the arbitration clause in Campbell's employment contract covered only disputes between Campbell and AIVA Global as defined parties and did not extend to individual claims against Muller and Shelton, rejecting their invocation of the equitable estoppel doctrine.
• In plain terms Two individuals appealed the court's decision that an arbitration clause did not apply to them; the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-13445 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-13445-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Cristofer Pecero-Ramirez (No. 25-14434; filed 2026-09-11) — Cristofer Ruben Pecero-Ramirez appealed his 24-month prison sentence for illegal reentry into the United States, claiming the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The district court imposed an upward variance from the guideline range of zero to six months based on Pecero-Ramirez's history of repeated illegal entries after removal, arrests involving controlled substances, and the need for deterrence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, finding the district court adequately explained its reasoning and properly exercised its discretion in weighing his criminal history.
• In plain terms A man sentenced to 24 months for reentering the United States illegally appealed; the court upheld the sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-14434 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-14434-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Jimmy Cobb (No. 26-10542; filed 2026-09-11) — Jimmy Cobb, who had completed his sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2425 regarding transmission of information about a minor, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis arguing his conduct fell outside the statute's scope and that his guilty plea lacked sufficient factual basis. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition, finding that alternate relief was available and that Cobb failed to demonstrate the ends of justice would be served by relitigating a previously rejected claim.
• In plain terms A man sought to reopen his conviction for transmitting information about a minor; the court rejected the petition.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-10542 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-10542-0 (opens in a new tab)
• James Carlan v. Tegna Inc., et al (No. 26-10758; filed 2026-09-11) — James Carlan sued TEGNA Inc. and 13WMAZ TV for defamation and negligence over a news article reporting his arrest at a November 2024 Trump rally after security guards removed him for carrying a sign and he was charged with battery. The district court granted the media defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the article's reporting was substantially accurate based on law enforcement accounts and protected by Georgia's communications privilege and anti-SLAPP statute. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
• In plain terms A man sued a TV station for reporting his arrest at a political rally; the court upheld the dismissal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-10758 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-10758-0 (opens in a new tab)
• La Laurel LLC, et al v. LifeWave, Inc. (No. 26-11972; filed 2026-09-11) — The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by La Laurel LLC and Onyx Lauren Coale from a district court order compelling arbitration and staying their case against LifeWave, Inc., finding it lacked jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) because the order stayed rather than dismissed the action.
• In plain terms A company appealed an order sending its case to arbitration; the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-11972 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-11972-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Tony Greenidge v. Florida Department of Revenue, et al (No. 26-12477; filed 2026-09-11) — Tony Greenidge appealed the district court's dismissal of his third amended complaint against the Florida Department of Revenue and its employees, but the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction because Greenidge filed his notice of appeal on July 13, 2026, more than thirty days after the June 10, 2026 judgment.
• In plain terms A man's appeal was dismissed because it was filed more than 30 days after the judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-12477 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-12477-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (No. 24-01696; filed 2026-09-11) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement regarding spinal implant patents, holding that preambles limiting claims to 'universal' devices are limiting and properly construed to require insertion in any spinal region using any approach. The court also affirmed denial of a judgment as a matter of law regarding a separate patent claim involving a positioning tool with a 'cooperating' gripper.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit upheld a ruling that the defendant's spinal implant does not infringe the patents, based on how the patent claims were interpreted.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696 / USCOURTS-ca13-24-01696-0 (opens in a new tab)
• AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (No. 25-01285; filed 2026-09-11) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim constructions of 'cooperating service provider' and 'non-blocking bandwidth' in a patent for wide area networks with improved quality of service, which supported the parties' stipulated judgment of noninfringement. The court concluded the construction was supported by the patent's intrinsic record and the patentee's prosecution history.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit upheld the interpretation of patent terms for a wide area network invention and confirmed a ruling that Amazon did not infringe the patent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01285 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01285-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ortiz v. Collins (No. 25-02156; filed 2026-09-11) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's dismissal of a mandamus petition seeking reinstatement as a VA employee, holding the Veterans Court lacks jurisdiction over contract disputes between the VA and its employees. The court found the petitioner failed to follow the Veterans Judicial Review Act system for such claims.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case seeking to reinstate a VA employee, finding the Veterans Court cannot hear employment contract disputes.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-02156 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-02156-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Polinski v. US (No. 26-01139; filed 2026-09-11) — The Federal Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's untimely appeal of a judgment dismissing his suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on takings and other claims, and affirmed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, finding the plaintiff was merely relitigating the merits without presenting new evidence or authority supporting relief.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal because it was filed too late and upheld the rejection of a motion for relief from an earlier judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-26-01139 / USCOURTS-ca13-26-01139-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Tobias v. MSPB (No. 26-01572; filed 2026-09-11) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal of an appeal as untimely, holding Board regulations deem agency decisions received when mailed to the appellant's address of record. The court found constitutional due process does not require actual receipt and a 386-day delay in appealing did not qualify for equitable tolling.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a late appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that mailed decisions are received as of the mailing date.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-26-01572 / USCOURTS-ca13-26-01572-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

• Smith v. Lynch (No. 25-10955; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Scott Smith's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit for failure to prosecute or follow court orders, finding that Smith abandoned his claims by failing to adequately brief his arguments on appeal.
• In plain terms A man's civil rights lawsuit appeal was rejected because he failed to adequately present his arguments to the court.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-10955 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-10955-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Saenz (No. 25-11220; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw from Leonel Gonzalez Saenz's appeal and dismissed the appeal after finding no nonfrivolous issues for review.
• In plain terms An appellate court dismissed a man's appeal after finding no valid legal arguments to review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-11220 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-11220-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez (No. 25-20241; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Josue Rodriguez-Rodriguez's conviction for illegal reentry to the United States and remanded for resentencing after finding insufficient documentation in the record to establish which prior conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
• In plain terms A man convicted of reentering the United States illegally appealed; the court remanded for resentencing.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20241 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20241-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Davis (No. 25-20393; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Faith Davis's conviction for assault and 46-month sentence, finding the government did not breach the plea agreement through its comments at sentencing regarding acceptance of responsibility.
• In plain terms A woman convicted of assault and sentenced to 46 months appealed; the court upheld the conviction and sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20393 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20393-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Williams (No. 25-20577; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order forfeiting two real properties owned by Huey P. Williams, Jr., to satisfy a $1,969,498.36 money judgment imposed for his healthcare fraud conviction, finding the district court properly retained authority to order substitute asset forfeiture.
• In plain terms A man appealed forfeiture of his properties to pay his fraud conviction judgment; the court upheld the forfeiture.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-20577 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-20577-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Sahs v. Loyola Univ New Orleans (No. 25-30263; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed that Louisiana's anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in federal court diversity cases, reversing the district court's earlier denial of Loyola University's motion to strike a defamation claim brought by former student Luke Sahs. The opinion addressed whether denials of such motions are immediately appealable orders and examined differing approaches among federal circuits on the same question.
• In plain terms A federal court ruled Louisiana's law for dismissing certain defamation lawsuits quickly doesn't apply in federal diversity cases.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30263 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30263-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Payne v. Hammond City (No. 25-30700; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Hammond in an employment discrimination suit brought by former police sergeant Jennifer Payne, who alleged sex discrimination, disability discrimination under the ADA and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, retaliatory demotion and discharge, and wrongful termination. The court found Payne failed to identify comparators similarly situated in nearly identical circumstances or provide evidence of disparate treatment required to survive summary judgment.
• In plain terms A former police sergeant appealed dismissal of her discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit; the court upheld the dismissal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-30700 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-30700-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Travelers v. Ericsson (No. 25-40583; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed that insurance carriers Travelers and ACE have no duty to defend Ericsson entities in underlying lawsuits alleging Ericsson paid protection money to Foreign Terrorist Organizations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, holding the alleged injuries were not covered by the commercial general liability policies because Ericsson's payments were intentional and volitional rather than accidental. The court applied Texas's eight-corners approach comparing third-party complaints to policy language.
• In plain terms Insurance carriers appealed the finding they must not defend Ericsson in lawsuits over alleged terrorist organization payments; the court upheld it.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-40583 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-40583-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Texas v. US Dept of the Interior (No. 25-50747; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of intervention by conservation organizations seeking to defend the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing of the lesser prairie-chicken as an endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but declined to reach the merits of the listing challenge because the conservation groups lack appellate standing. The case arose after the agency abandoned its defense of the listing in settlement negotiations with states and industry groups.
• In plain terms A court allowed conservation groups to join defending an endangered species listing but found they lack power to appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50747 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50747-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Sanchez-Romero (No. 25-50948; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Odilon Sanchez-Romero following his conviction for illegal reentry and the consecutive sentence upon revocation of his supervised release term, finding no reversible plain error in the district court's sentencing explanations, reasonableness determination, imposition of supervised release on a deportable alien, or conduct of a joint sentencing hearing involving other defendants.
• In plain terms A man sentenced for reentering the United States illegally and violating supervised release appealed; the court upheld both sentences.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50948 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50948-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Sanchez-Romero (No. 25-50949; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Odilon Sanchez-Romero following his conviction for illegal reentry and the consecutive sentence upon revocation of his supervised release term, finding no reversible plain error in the district court's sentencing explanations, reasonableness determination, imposition of supervised release on a deportable alien, or conduct of a joint sentencing hearing involving other defendants.
• In plain terms A man sentenced for reentering the United States illegally and violating supervised release appealed; the court upheld both sentences.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50949 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50949-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Polinski v. Avondale Premier (No. 26-10074; filed 2026-09-11) — Peter J. Polinski appealed the dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appellate court determined his appeal raised no nonfrivolous legal issues and dismissed it as frivolous, affirming the district court's declaration of him as a vexatious litigant and its requirement that he obtain leave before filing additional lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas.
• In plain terms A man appealed dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit; the court upheld it and declared him a vexatious litigant.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10074 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10074-0 (opens in a new tab)
• San Miguel v. Searcy (No. 26-10115; filed 2026-09-11) — Samuel San Miguel, a Texas Civil Commitment Center resident, appealed the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction and related relief against multiple defendants. The appellate court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, finding San Miguel did not meet the requirements for such relief.
• In plain terms A Texas Civil Commitment Center resident's appeal was partly dismissed for lack of court authority, and the court upheld the denial of his request for emergency court orders.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10115 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10115-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Desormeaux (No. 26-30073; filed 2026-09-11) — Brian Paul Desormeaux appealed his sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud following his guilty plea, challenging two sentencing enhancements related to his role and the sophistication of the scheme. The appellate court affirmed, finding the record supported that Desormeaux exercised authority over his codefendants, organized the criminal activity, and employed complex fraudulent methods.
• In plain terms A wire fraud conspirator's appeal of his sentence was rejected; the court found evidence he led the criminal activity and used complex fraudulent methods.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-30073 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-30073-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Simms v. Dynamic Industries (No. 26-30185; filed 2026-09-11) — Attorneys J. Stephen Simms and Catherine M. Benson appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of their motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioning creditors in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia, Limited. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the bankruptcy court properly relied on the pending motion for attorney's fees and costs and did not abuse its discretion.
• In plain terms Two attorneys appealed a bankruptcy court's refusal to let them withdraw as counsel in a creditor case; the court upheld the refusal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-30185 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-30185-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Albert v. Pacesetter (No. 26-40015; filed 2026-09-11) — Steven Albert, his wife, and daughter sued Pacesetter Inc. for personal injuries from a pacemaker with allegedly defective epoxy that caused premature battery drain. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Pacesetter, finding the Alberts failed to provide expert testimony establishing that the manufacturing defect caused Albert's injuries, as required under Texas law.
• In plain terms A family sued a pacemaker maker for a defective battery but lost because they failed to provide expert testimony proving the defect caused the injury.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-40015 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-40015-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Mooney v. Clark (No. 26-50106; filed 2026-09-11) — Vernon Wayne Mooney, a Texas prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his civil rights complaint challenging the amendment of parole violation allegations by parole and hearing officers. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as frivolous, finding no arguable basis for Mooney's due process claim since he admitted possessing a six-inch knife that Texas law prohibited in community corrections facilities.
• In plain terms A Texas prisoner's civil rights appeal challenging amended parole violation allegations was rejected as lacking legal foundation.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-50106 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-50106-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• Roberge v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of America (No. 24-01040; filed 2024-08-12) — Cynthia Roberge sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under an insurance policy issued to her employer, the State of Rhode Island, after a car accident while working but driving her own vehicle. Travelers Property Casualty Company denied coverage because the policy limited coverage to state-owned or substitute vehicles. The First Circuit certified two unresolved questions of Rhode Island insurance law to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
• In plain terms A woman sought uninsured motorist coverage under her employer's insurance policy after a car accident while driving her own vehicle; the insurer denied it, and the court referred two questions of state law to the state supreme court.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-24-01040 / USCOURTS-ca1-24-01040-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Roberge v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of America (No. 24-01040; filed 2026-09-11) — Following the Rhode Island Supreme Court's answers to certified questions, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Travelers Property Casualty Company. The state supreme court held that Roberge was not entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as a named insured, and that the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute did not require coverage where the policy did not provide primary coverage for the vehicle involved in the accident. The court also rejected Roberge's argument that Travelers waived its defense by not citing all applicable grounds in its initial denial.
• In plain terms After the state supreme court answered certified questions, the court affirmed that the woman was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because the policy did not cover her own vehicle and the statute did not require such coverage.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-24-01040 / USCOURTS-ca1-24-01040-1 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Parsons (No. 25-01443; filed 2026-09-11) — Malik Parsons was convicted of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute those drugs. He appealed, challenging a detective's testimony characterizing a location as a stash house used by Parsons and questioning his 84-month sentence based on sentencing guidelines calculations. The First Circuit rejected both challenges and affirmed his conviction and sentence.
• In plain terms A man convicted of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine appealed, challenging evidence about a stash house and his prison sentence, but the court rejected both challenges and upheld his conviction and sentence.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01443 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01443-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Linardon v. Walsh, et al (No. 25-01541; filed 2026-09-11) — The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of disability discrimination claims against the Executive Office of Health and Human Services but vacated and remanded the disposition of related claims against the Montachusett Regional Transit Authority. The court held that the district court erred by conducting a bench trial on claims for compensatory damages without honoring the appellant's demand for a jury trial, as the appellant had consistently demanded a jury and never expressly or implicitly waived that right despite contradictory statements from the district court about the availability of a jury.
• In plain terms The court upheld dismissal of disability claims against the health agency but reversed those against the transit authority for wrongly deciding the case before a judge instead of a jury despite the appellant's jury demand.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01541 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01541-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Pena de la Cruz (No. 25-01648; filed 2026-09-11) — Jose Miguel Pena de la Cruz was indicted for money laundering conspiracy and aiding and abetting money laundering. After immigration authorities took him into custody and scheduled his deportation to the Dominican Republic, the district court dismissed the indictment with prejudice. The First Circuit vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded, holding that dismissing with prejudice rather than without prejudice constituted an abuse of discretion.
• In plain terms A man indicted for money laundering and facing deportation had his case dismissed in a way preventing refiling, but the court found that improper and ordered it dismissed in a way that allows refiling.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca1-25-01648 / USCOURTS-ca1-25-01648-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete v. Ironplanet, Inc. (No. 25-01316; filed 2026-09-11) — Murdock Ready Mixed Concrete appealed the district court's dismissal of its civil complaint against Ironplanet, Inc. and its employees, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed after finding that Murdock forfeited appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation and by failing to challenge the dispositive bases for dismissal in its informal brief.
• In plain terms A concrete company lost its right to appeal dismissal of its lawsuit by failing to follow proper appellate procedures.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-01316 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-01316-0 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Willie Purvis (No. 25-06369; filed 2026-09-11) — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Willie Purvis's motions for a sentence reduction or compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
• In plain terms A man appealed the denial of his sentence reduction request; the court upheld the denial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-06369 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-06369-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

• POWERS, ET AL. V. MCDONOUGH, ET AL. (No. 24-6576; filed 2026-09-11) — A class action brought by homeless veterans with severe mental illnesses or traumatic brain injuries alleged the Department of Veterans Affairs violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide permanent supportive housing on its West Los Angeles campus. The district court ruled in favor of the veterans and ordered construction of 1,800 permanent and 750 temporary housing units within six years. The appellate panel affirmed this judgment, though dissenting judges contended the decision exceeded proper judicial authority.
• In plain terms Homeless veterans with mental illness or brain injuries won their case against the Department of Veterans Affairs; the agency must build 1,800 permanent and 750 temporary housing units within six years.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-6576 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-6576-0 (opens in a new tab)
• ERWINE V. WESTBROOK, ET AL. (No. 25-3136; filed 2026-09-11) — Michael Erwine, a former police officer for the Washoe Tribe, sued tribal officers alleging race discrimination and federal civil rights violations following his termination. The district court dismissed the suit based on tribal sovereign immunity and absolute immunity defenses. The appellate court reversed, holding that tribal sovereign immunity does not shield officers from individual-capacity suits when judgment does not run against the tribe, and that the officers did not establish absolute immunity for the challenged conduct.
• In plain terms A former tribal police officer's race discrimination lawsuit was restored on appeal; tribal sovereign immunity doesn't shield individual officers from personal liability suits.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-3136 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-3136-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LEWIS-WILLIAMS, ET AL. V. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (No. 25-618; filed 2026-09-11) — Six former BART employees sued for failure to accommodate their sincere religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, obtaining a jury verdict of $7,824,580. BART had concluded that accommodating any of 70 employees requesting religious exemptions would cause undue hardship, and terminated or allowed resignation of those who refused vaccination. The appellate court affirmed, finding BART failed to prove that alternative safety measures would be substantially less safe than the mandate.
• In plain terms Six BART employees won a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination over a COVID vaccine mandate; the jury awarded over $7.8 million and the verdict was upheld.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-618 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-618-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LEWIS-WILLIAMS, ET AL. V. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (No. 25-619; filed 2026-09-11) — Six former BART employees sued for failure to accommodate their sincere religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, obtaining a jury verdict of $7,824,580. BART had concluded that accommodating any of 70 employees requesting religious exemptions would cause undue hardship, and terminated or allowed resignation of those who refused vaccination. The appellate court affirmed, finding BART failed to prove that alternative safety measures would be substantially less safe than the mandate.
• In plain terms Six BART employees won a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination over a COVID vaccine mandate; the jury awarded over $7.8 million and the verdict was upheld.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-619 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-619-0 (opens in a new tab)
• LEWIS-WILLIAMS, ET AL. V. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (No. 25-740; filed 2026-09-11) — Six former BART employees sued for failure to accommodate their sincere religious objections to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, obtaining a jury verdict of $7,824,580. BART had concluded that accommodating any of 70 employees requesting religious exemptions would cause undue hardship, and terminated or allowed resignation of those who refused vaccination. The appellate court affirmed, finding BART failed to prove that alternative safety measures would be substantially less safe than the mandate.
• In plain terms Six BART employees won a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination over a COVID vaccine mandate; the jury awarded over $7.8 million and the verdict was upheld.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-740 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-740-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

• Frankie N. Walker, Sr. v. John P. Roe (No. 25-01661; filed 2026-09-11) — Frankie Walker, a civil detainee, sued his conditional-release agent for denying him access to clinic care for chest pain in May 2020, claiming violation of his due process rights. The agent had informed Walker he could seek emergency treatment if pain escalated but refused to provide non-emergency transportation. The appellate court affirmed dismissal and summary judgment for the agent, holding his decision was objectively reasonable under pandemic guidelines in effect at the time.
• In plain terms A civil detainee's lawsuit against his release agent for refusing non-emergency clinic transportation during the pandemic was rejected; the agent's decision was deemed reasonable.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-01661 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-01661-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• USA v. Todd Stafford (No. 24-01612; filed 2026-09-11) — The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction for coercion and enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), but reversed and remanded two convictions for interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), finding error in jury instructions regarding proof of age and age differential. The defendant met the minor through an online dating app and engaged in sexual activity on multiple occasions.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit upheld a conviction for coercing a minor but reversed two related convictions due to errors in jury instructions about age.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-24-01612 / USCOURTS-ca6-24-01612-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Steve Croom, Jr. (No. 25-03864; filed 2026-09-11) — The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a 24-month prison sentence imposed on Steve Croom, Jr. for three violations of his supervised release conditions—using alcohol, violating traffic laws, and failing to pay restitution—stemming from an incident in which he drove while intoxicated and struck a vehicle carrying a mother and two children. The court rejected arguments that the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable, finding that the district court adequately explained its 10-month upward variance from the guidelines range based on Croom's repeated alcohol-related violations and lack of progress toward sobriety despite prior treatment opportunities.
• In plain terms The Sixth Circuit upheld a 24-month sentence for supervised release violations including alcohol use and failure to pay restitution, stemming from driving while intoxicated.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-25-03864 / USCOURTS-ca6-25-03864-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

• United States v. Guzman-Aviles (No. 25-03150; filed 2026-09-11) — The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motions for compassionate release and sentence reduction. Although a revised sentencing guideline amendment would allow a two-level reduction for certain zero-point offenders, the defendant was disqualified because he actively possessed a firearm in connection with his drug trafficking offense, consistent with prior appellate precedent.
• In plain terms A court upheld denial of a defendant's requests for early release and sentence reduction because his firearm possession during drug crimes disqualified him from new reduction guidelines.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-03150 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-03150-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Silas (No. 25-05179; filed 2026-09-11) — A jury convicted Silas of drug distribution resulting in death, four counts of using a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking felony, and laundering drug proceeds. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that even if certain text message evidence admitted at trial constituted hearsay, any error was harmless given the government's overwhelming properly admitted evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• In plain terms A jury found Silas guilty of distributing drugs that caused a death, using communications to further drug crimes, and money laundering; a court upheld the conviction.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-05179 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-05179-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. Weiser, et al (No. 26-01086; filed 2026-09-11) — The Tenth Circuit granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
• In plain terms The parties agreed to drop the appeal because circumstances made it no longer necessary to decide.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01086 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01086-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Strege v. Grand Junction Police Department, et al (No. 26-01174; filed 2026-09-11) — The district court remanded the case to state court, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand order. The court found the remand rendered the case moot and rejected the pro se appellant's arguments as lacking any colorable legal or factual basis.
• In plain terms A court sent the case to state court; an appeals court upheld that decision, finding the case no longer needed deciding and the unrepresented appellant's arguments lacked merit.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01174 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01174-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Strege v. Launch All Nuclear Missiles, et al (No. 26-01185; filed 2026-09-11) — The district court dismissed the case on remand after construing the plaintiff's motion to consolidate as a motion for voluntary dismissal. The Tenth Circuit found the dismissal was premature given an earlier remand for further proceedings and remanded for the district court to consider whether to allow an amended complaint addressing the original deficiencies.
• In plain terms A court dismissed the case after misinterpreting a motion; an appeals court said the dismissal was too quick and sent it back to allow the plaintiff to file an improved complaint.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01185 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01185-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Strege v. Colorado Courts, et al (No. 26-01246; filed 2026-09-11) — The district court dismissed the plaintiff's fourth amended complaint under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 8's pleading requirements and denied motions to recuse judges. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion and determining the pro se appellant's brief contained no rational argument based on law or facts.
• In plain terms A court dismissed the plaintiff's fourth revised complaint for not meeting filing rules; an appeals court upheld the dismissal as properly decided.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01246 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01246-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Landez-Lozano v. Baltazar, et al (No. 26-01279; filed 2026-09-11) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted appellants' motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal in Landez-Lozano v. Baltazar, et al.
• In plain terms The appellants were allowed to withdraw their appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01279 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01279-0 (opens in a new tab)
• United States v. Taylor (No. 26-04058; filed 2026-09-11) — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted defendant Latroy Taylor's unopposed motion to withdraw his appeal in a criminal case, after Taylor submitted a statement demonstrating his knowledge of the right to appeal.
• In plain terms A defendant was allowed to drop his appeal after confirming he understood his right to appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-09-11)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-04058 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-04058-0 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 33104 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 2026-09-12 (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.

USPS Newsroom

• USPS salutes U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s 150 years (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-12 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

• Walking a mile: Navy nurses train with VA to better serve Veterans (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-09-12 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 2026-09-12, 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 2026-09-12, 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 2026-09-12. 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 2026-09-13T04:01:08Z · CREC: completed 2026-09-13T04:01:07Z · FR: completed 2026-09-13T04:01:09Z · PLAW: completed 2026-09-13T04:07:06Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-09-13T04:01:10Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 862 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 6 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: 167 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 2026-09-12.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (710c484). 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 2026-09-12; 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).