Daily Digest — 2026-10-31

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 2026-10-31 to 2026-10-31.

2.1 Counts by Stage

2.2 Bills Listed by Mechanical Rule

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

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

Source: Federal Register (FR), issue of 2026-10-31.

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 2026-10-31.

No laws were published in this range.

Source: United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS): opinions observed 2026-10-31 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

judicialappellate rulings (model-generated key)attorneys fees (model-generated key)solar antidumping (model-generated key)

In plain terms 55 items include a Federal Circuit reversal of a $9.1 million fee award to Elysium Health and a Ninth Circuit stay in an Idaho abortion-law case; the rest are appellate rulings and solar antidumping opinions.

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

• Duane Cox v. Cmsnr. IRS (No. 25-01271; filed 2026-10-30) — On October 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a per curiam judgment in Duane Cox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 25-1271, denying the appellant's motion for default judgment and affirming the U.S. Tax Court's orders of June 18, 2025, and October 20, 2025. The court found that the proceeds in dispute did not exceed $2 million, that the administrative record did not show the IRS action was based on the appellant's information, and that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, record supplementation, or reconsideration. The disposition is designated unpublished, and the Clerk was directed to withhold the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely rehearing petition.
• In plain terms On October 30, 2026, the D.C. Circuit upheld two Tax Court orders from June 18, 2025 and October 20, 2025 in Duane Cox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and denied the appellant's default judgment motion.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-caDC-25-01271 / USCOURTS-caDC-25-01271-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• Jarell Terry v. Dexter Payne, et al (No. 25-01374; filed 2026-10-30) — On October 30, 2026, the Eighth Circuit Clerk of Court sent a letter to counsel in Jarell Terry v. Dexter Payne, et al., No. 25-1374, stating that the court has issued an opinion and that judgment has been entered in accordance with it. The letter states that petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc must be received within 14 days of the entry of judgment, must be filed electronically in CM/ECF, and may be denied as untimely if not received within that period, with no mailing grace period except as provided by FRAP 25(a)(2)(iii). The letter is copied to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, case number 2:22-cv-00170-LPR.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit clerk's October 30, 2026 letter in Jarell Terry v. Dexter Payne said an opinion issued and that rehearing petitions must be received within 14 days of judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-01374 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-01374-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Stephen Parr v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (No. 25-03379; filed 2026-10-30) — On October 30, 2026, the Eighth Circuit Clerk of Court sent a letter to counsel in Stephen Parr v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 25-3379, stating that the court has issued an opinion and that judgment has been entered in accordance with it. The letter sets out the same rehearing requirements, including the 14-day receipt deadline under FRAP 40 and electronic filing in CM/ECF for counsel-filed petitions. The underlying district court case is number 4:24-cv-00094-SRB.
• In plain terms The Eighth Circuit clerk's October 30, 2026 letter in Stephen Parr v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. said an opinion issued and that rehearing petitions must be received within 14 days of judgment.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca8-25-03379 / USCOURTS-ca8-25-03379-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Dustin McLellan v. USA (No. 22-13589; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Dustin Lee McLellan's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as to the Clisby v. Jones issue concerning his Armed Career Criminal Act and downward departure claim. The court vacated the certificate of appealability as improvidently granted on the question of whether the claims in his April 14, 2022 motion to amend were untimely, and dismissed that portion of the appeal. The opinion recounts that McLellan was convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and that the district court found his motion to amend untimely.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of Dustin Lee McLellan's motion to vacate his sentence on one issue and dismissed the appeal on whether his April 14, 2022 motion to amend was untimely.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-22-13589 / USCOURTS-ca11-22-13589-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Alex Winters (No. 23-12182; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and 480-month total sentence of Alex Winters for possession of a firearm as a felon, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The court held, under plain-error review, that Winters did not show a double jeopardy violation from consecutive sentences on the drug offense and the § 924(c) count, relying on circuit precedent. The opinion also addresses Winters's challenge, raised for the first time on appeal, to the application of the career-offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Alex Winters's convictions and 480-month sentence for felon firearm possession, drug distribution, and gun possession in furtherance of drug trafficking, and addressed a career-offender challenge first raised on appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-23-12182 / USCOURTS-ca11-23-12182-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Chadwick Lemaine (No. 24-14049; filed 2026-10-30) — In this published opinion, Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the Eleventh Circuit panel, affirmed a 96-month sentence imposed on Chadwick Lemaine for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court addressed whether the district court reversibly erred in finding that Lemaine committed an armed robbery while on bond, whether it plainly erred in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on that finding, and whether the sentence was unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court committed no reversible error and affirmed.
• In plain terms In a published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Chadwick Lemaine's 96-month sentence for felon firearm possession, finding no reversible error in the finding that he committed armed robbery while on bond.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-24-14049 / USCOURTS-ca11-24-14049-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Yolanda Lopez v. Gabriela Llanes, et al (No. 25-12239; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal by Officers Gabriela Llanes and Johane Taylor of the City of Opa-Locka from the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity and state immunity. The plaintiff, Yolanda Lopez, asserted false arrest and excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law assault, battery, and false imprisonment claims arising from an October 1, 2022 encounter. The court reasoned that the officers' arguments depended on disputing the district court's factual findings rather than on questions of law, citing English v. City of Gainesville.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the interlocutory appeal of Opa-Locka officers Gabriela Llanes and Johane Taylor over denial of summary judgment on immunity in Yolanda Lopez's suit arising from an October 1, 2022 encounter.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-12239 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-12239-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Anneliz Colon De Jesus (No. 25-14211; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit granted the motion of appointed counsel Jorge Gerena-Mendez to withdraw under Anders v. California in the direct appeal of Anneliz Colon De Jesus. After independent review of the entire record, the court found no arguable issues of merit and affirmed her convictions and sentences.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit allowed appointed counsel Jorge Gerena-Mendez to withdraw under the Anders v. California procedure in Anneliz Colon De Jesus's appeal, found no arguable issues of merit, and affirmed her convictions and sentences.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-25-14211 / USCOURTS-ca11-25-14211-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Obdy Guerrero (No. 26-10313; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction of Obdy Jessael Mencia Guerrero for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The court held, reviewing de novo, that Guerrero did not produce sufficient evidence of government inducement to warrant an entrapment jury instruction, because the undercover deputy's messages showed an opportunity presented and not pressure or manipulation. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to give the instruction.
• In plain terms The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Obdy Jessael Mencia Guerrero's conviction for attempting to entice a minor into sexual activity, finding the undercover deputy's messages presented an opportunity rather than pressure, so no entrapment instruction was required.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca11-26-10313 / USCOURTS-ca11-26-10313-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc. (No. 25-01227; filed 2026-10-30) — The Federal Circuit reversed the District of Delaware's award of $9.1 million in attorneys' fees to Elysium Health, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 285, concluding that the district court abused its discretion. The court held that the patent-eligibility question under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the ChromaDex patents required considerations beyond Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. The disposition is nonprecedential and was decided October 30, 2026, by Judges Prost, Chen, and Stoll.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit reversed a $9.1 million attorneys' fee award to Elysium Health under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ruling the district court abused its discretion; the non-binding decision issued October 30, 2026.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01227 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01227-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. BeSang Inc. (No. 25-01320; filed 2026-10-30) — The Federal Circuit affirmed two inter partes review final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that claims 1 and 13–17 of BeSang Inc.'s U.S. Patent 7,378,702 were not shown to be unpatentable, in appeals brought by Micron Technology and Intel Corporation. The opinion addresses the Board's findings that the Watanabe reference was not enabled prior art and that the Lee Application did not teach the claimed stackable add-on layer of vertically oriented memory cells. The disposition is nonprecedential and was decided October 30, 2026.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that claims 1 and 13–17 of BeSang's U.S. Patent 7,378,702 were not shown unpatentable; the non-binding decision issued October 30, 2026.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01320 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01320-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (No. 25-01346; filed 2026-10-30) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Sonos in Google LLC's suit over U.S. Patent No. 7,899,187. The district court construed the terms 'utilized' and 'private key,' which disposed of Google's Strong-Encryption and Authentication infringement theories, and the appellate panel agreed with those constructions without reaching the remaining issues. The disposition is nonprecedential.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement for Sonos in Google's suit over U.S. Patent No. 7,899,187; the decision is not binding precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01346 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01346-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Intel Corporation v. BeSang Inc. (No. 25-01377; filed 2026-10-30) — The Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings IPR2023-00900 and IPR2023-00991, which found that claims 1 and 13-17 of BeSang Inc.'s U.S. Patent 7,378,702 were not unpatentable. In the Micron appeal, the court held that the Board's finding that the Watanabe reference was not enabled prior art was supported by substantial evidence. The disposition is nonprecedential.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions finding claims 1 and 13–17 of BeSang's U.S. Patent 7,378,702 not unpatentable; the decision is not binding precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01377 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01377-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (No. 25-01809; filed 2026-10-30) — The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decision in IPR2024-00008, which held that Precision Planting had not shown that claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16 of Maschio Gaspardo's U.S. Patent No. 8,770,121 would have been obvious, and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the Board's finding that the Fiorido reference does not disclose a thrust-bearing element was not supported by substantial evidence. The court did not reach Precision Planting's challenges to the Board's motivation-to-combine analysis.
• In plain terms The Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling on the obviousness of claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16 of Maschio Gaspardo's U.S. Patent No. 8,770,121 and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca13-25-01809 / USCOURTS-ca13-25-01809-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

• De Chavez v. UPS (No. 25-11146; filed 2026-10-30) — In this opinion dated October 30, 2026, the Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to review a district court's sua sponte remand order in De Chavez v. United Parcel Service, because the order rested on a procedural defect in the notice of removal rather than on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that UPS's allegations of Texas citizenship, which pleaded residency and alleged citizenship and domicile on information and belief, were a pleading deficiency under its precedent in In re Allstate. The court vacated the remand order and remanded for further proceedings, directing the district court to consider the fraudulent joinder arguments in the first instance. The text available for this summary is truncated in the source.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit held it could review the district court's remand order, issued on its own initiative because of a procedural defect in the removal notice, vacated it, and remanded for consideration of fraudulent joinder arguments.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-11146 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-11146-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA v. Sanchez-Varela (No. 25-50704; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed a Western District of Texas judgment in the case of Carlos Antonio Sanchez-Varela, who pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argued that the district court referenced impermissible factors when imposing the supervised release term, and because he did not raise this objection below, the court reviewed only for plain error. The court held that he had not met his burden on the remaining prongs of the plain error analysis even assuming clear or obvious error, and the unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026 affirmed the judgment.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit affirmed Carlos Antonio Sanchez-Varela's illegal reentry judgment of 108 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release, finding he did not meet his burden under the plain-error standard on an objection not raised below.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-25-50704 / USCOURTS-ca5-25-50704-0 (opens in a new tab)
• 82 Glenwood Ave v. Kane (No. 26-10079; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed a Northern District of Texas order dismissing claims by 82 Glenwood Avenue, L.L.C. against David Kane, Evan Lipp, and Kane Title, L.L.C., which arose from a $3 million escrow deposit wired to Lipp that was subsequently released to another party. The court held that the complaint did not sufficiently plead mutual assent to terms under which Lipp would return the funds only to 82 Glenwood, that the complaint contained no factual allegations against Kane, and that the related breach of contract claim against Kane Title failed as derivative of the claim against Lipp. The unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026 affirmed the dismissal.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of 82 Glenwood Avenue, L.L.C.'s suit against David Kane, Evan Lipp, and Kane Title, L.L.C. over a $3 million escrow deposit wired to Lipp and later released to another party.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-10079 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-10079-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Barber v. State of Mississippi (No. 26-60016; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal of Terry Lynn Barber, a Mississippi prisoner, from the voluntary dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Mississippi and other named defendants. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Barber did not file a timely notice of appeal, citing Bowles v. Russell and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The unpublished per curiam opinion was issued October 30, 2026.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit dismissed Terry Lynn Barber's appeal from the voluntary dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Mississippi and other defendants, because he did not file a timely notice of appeal.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-60016 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60016-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Perez Rojas v. Blanche (No. 26-60044; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review filed by Grecia Josefina Perez Rojas, a Venezuelan citizen whose appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was summarily dismissed as untimely. The court found that the BIA did not address whether her infant child's terminal illness and months-long hospital stay, documented in hospice and hospital letters, constituted extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling, and it characterized this omission as an abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the BIA for further factual development and a determination on equitable tolling; the unpublished per curiam opinion is dated October 30, 2026.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit granted Grecia Josefina Perez Rojas's petition for review, remanding because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not address whether her infant's terminal illness and hospital stay were extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-60044 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60044-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Persaud v. Blanche (No. 26-60208; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Keeran Persaud, a Guyanese citizen, of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that summarily dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of a motion to reopen as untimely and affirmed the denial of his motion to reconsider. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion, that Persaud had not raised equitable tolling before the BIA, and that his challenges to his stipulated removal order and his due process claims lacked merit. The unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026 denied the petition.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit denied Keeran Persaud's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that summarily dismissed his appeal as untimely and upheld denial of reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-60208 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60208-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Fucich v. Ashe (No. 26-60298; filed 2026-10-30) — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Mississippi's denial of Clayton Fucich's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to declare void the judgments, orders, and proceedings issued by Judge Barry W. Ashe in a suit Fucich filed against Ashe. The court stated that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) only in rare instances involving a certain type of jurisdictional error or a due process violation, citing United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, and that such a motion was not the appropriate avenue for the challenge. The unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026 found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment.
• In plain terms The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of Clayton Fucich's Rule 60(b)(4) motion to declare void orders Judge Barry W. Ashe issued in Fucich's suit against Ashe, noting such relief applies only in rare jurisdictional-error or due-process cases.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca5-26-60298 / USCOURTS-ca5-26-60298-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• Keith Moss v. Joseph Walters (No. 24-07194; filed 2025-04-29) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Keith Edward Moss's appeal from an Eastern District of Virginia order dismissing his action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1), noted that his notice of appeal was filed after the 30-day period expired on November 28, 2024. The notice included a request for an extension, and the court observed that it was filed within the 30-day excusable neglect window under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Moss has shown good cause or excusable neglect warranting an extension.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit remanded Keith Moss's case, an Eastern District of Virginia dismissal appealed after the 30-day period expired November 28, 2024, for a ruling on whether he shows good cause or excusable neglect.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-24-07194 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-07194-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Keith Moss v. Joseph Walters (No. 24-07194; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Keith Edward Moss's appeal of an Eastern District of Virginia dismissal order for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. On remand from the court's April 29, 2025 order, the district court found that Moss had provided no explanation warranting an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The Fourth Circuit reviewed that determination for abuse of discretion, found none, and dispensed with oral argument.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit dismissed Keith Moss's appeal of an Eastern District of Virginia dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice was untimely, after the district court found no explanation warranting an extension.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-24-07194 / USCOURTS-ca4-24-07194-1 (opens in a new tab)
• US v. Daniel Mathis (No. 25-04240; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the second amended criminal judgment in United States v. Daniel Lamont Mathis, a case involving convictions on 23 counts, including murder in aid of racketeering and witness tampering by murder. The court denied the government's motion for summary affirmance but held that Mathis's Eighth Amendment challenge to his two mandatory life sentences is foreclosed by binding circuit precedent in United States v. Contreras and United States v. Chavez, which draw a bright line at age 18. The court also held that the within-Guidelines life sentence on count 26 was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit affirmed Daniel Lamont Mathis's second amended criminal judgment on 23 counts, including murder in aid of racketeering, and held binding precedent bars his Eighth Amendment challenge to two mandatory life sentences.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-25-04240 / USCOURTS-ca4-25-04240-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Norberto Quinones (No. 26-01045; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026, the Fourth Circuit denied Norberto Quinones's petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought an order directing the District of Maryland to act on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) motion for reduction of sentence. The court's review of the district court's docket showed that the district court granted the motion in part on August 5, 2026. The petition was denied as moot.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit denied Norberto Quinones's petition seeking an order that the District of Maryland act on his sentence-reduction motion as moot, because the district court granted it in part on August 5, 2026.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-26-01045 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-01045-0 (opens in a new tab)
• In re: Hubert Rabon, Sr. (No. 26-01867; filed 2026-10-30) — In this unpublished per curiam opinion dated October 30, 2026, the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Hubert Daniel Rabon, Sr. and Sandra Stegall Rabon, who alleged that the Western District of North Carolina had unduly delayed ruling on their in forma pauperis motions and their motion for service of process by the U.S. Marshals Service. The court found that the present record did not reveal undue delay. The court granted the petitioners' motion to seal a supporting document and denied their motions for leave to file additional evidence and for appointment of counsel.
• In plain terms The Fourth Circuit denied a petition by Hubert Daniel Rabon, Sr. and Sandra Stegall Rabon seeking an order compelling the Western District of North Carolina to rule on their motions, finding no undue delay.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca4-26-01867 / USCOURTS-ca4-26-01867-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

• NINTH INNING INC., ET AL. V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC, ET AL. (No. 24-5493; filed 2026-10-30) — In a published opinion resolving consolidated appeals, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District of California's judgment as a matter of law for the National Football League in an antitrust class action brought by DirecTV subscribers over 'Sunday Ticket' pricing. The panel affirmed the district court's order granting a new trial on damages, holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 but did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury's damages calculation was improper. The panel remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's liability verdict and to hold a new trial on damages.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for the NFL in a DirecTV subscribers' Sunday Ticket antitrust class action, affirmed a damages new-trial order, and remanded to reinstate the liability verdict and hold a new damages trial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-5493 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-5493-0 (opens in a new tab)
• NINTH INNING INC., ET AL. V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC, ET AL. (No. 24-5691; filed 2026-10-30) — In a published opinion resolving consolidated appeals, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District of California's judgment as a matter of law for the National Football League in an antitrust class action brought by DirecTV subscribers over 'Sunday Ticket' pricing. The panel affirmed the district court's order granting a new trial on damages, holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 but did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury's damages calculation was improper. The panel remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's liability verdict and to hold a new trial on damages.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for the NFL in a DirecTV subscribers' Sunday Ticket antitrust class action, affirmed a damages new-trial order, and remanded to reinstate the liability verdict and hold a new damages trial.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-24-5691 / USCOURTS-ca9-24-5691-0 (opens in a new tab)
• SHARED PARTNERSHIP V. META PLATFORMS, INC. (No. 25-2612; filed 2026-10-30) — In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California's dismissal of a conversion claim brought by Shared Partnership against Meta Platforms, Inc. The claim arose from Meta's cancellation of Shared Partnership's Facebook pages for repeated violations of Meta's terms and policies. The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred the claim because it treated Meta as a publisher of third-party content, and that a contractual duty in the Terms of Service did not remove the claim from Section 230's protection.
• In plain terms In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Shared Partnership's conversion claim against Meta Platforms over cancelled Facebook pages, holding Section 230 barred it because it treated Meta as a publisher of third-party content.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-2612 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-2612-0 (opens in a new tab)
• NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, ET AL. V. MULLIN, ET AL. (No. 25-5724; filed 2026-10-30) — The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction in National TPS Alliance v. Mullin, following the Supreme Court's October 5, 2026 grant of certiorari, vacatur of the circuit's prior decision in Nat'l TPS All. v. Noem, and remand in light of Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. 324 (2026). The order also denies the Government's alternative request for an administrative stay of at least 21 days and states that the court will set an expedited merits briefing schedule by separate order.
• In plain terms After the Supreme Court's October 5, 2026 certiorari grant and remand, the Ninth Circuit denied the government's stay motion pending appeal of a preliminary injunction in National TPS Alliance v. Mullin, and denied a 21-day administrative stay.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-25-5724 / USCOURTS-ca9-25-5724-0 (opens in a new tab)
• SEYB V. LABRADOR, ET AL. (No. 26-5360; filed 2026-10-30) — The Ninth Circuit issued an order in Seyb v. Labrador granting a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction, which had barred enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-622 and Idaho Code § 18-8804 against Dr. Stacy Seyb in certain health-preserving abortion cases. The panel determined that Defendants made a strong showing of likely success on the merits in light of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, denied Dr. Seyb's motion to vacate the partial stay, and consolidated Appeal Nos. 26-5360, 26-5558, and 26-6068 under a briefing schedule with due dates from December 18, 2026 through February 19, 2027. The order includes a concurrence by Judge Wardlaw, and the caption notes a dissent by Judge Berzon.
• In plain terms Pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit paused a lower court order blocking Idaho Code § 18-622 and § 18-8804 against Dr. Stacy Seyb; briefs are due December 18, 2026 through February 19, 2027.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-26-5360 / USCOURTS-ca9-26-5360-0 (opens in a new tab)
• SEYB V. ADA COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ET AL. (No. 26-5558; filed 2026-10-30) — This document is the Ninth Circuit order captioned Seyb v. Ada County Prosecuting Attorney, et al., which grants a stay pending appeal of the district court's injunction against enforcement of Idaho's Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act as applied to Dr. Stacy Seyb. The panel found Defendants made a strong showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable injury, denied Dr. Seyb's motion to vacate the partial stay, and consolidated Appeal Nos. 26-5360, 26-5558, and 26-6068 with a set briefing schedule. The order includes a concurrence by Judge Wardlaw, and the caption notes a dissent by Judge Berzon.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit paused, pending appeal, a lower court order blocking Idaho's Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act as applied to Dr. Stacy Seyb.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-26-5558 / USCOURTS-ca9-26-5558-0 (opens in a new tab)
• SEYB V. LABRADOR, ET AL. (No. 26-6068; filed 2026-10-30) — This document is the Ninth Circuit order captioned Seyb v. Labrador, et al., which stays the district court's injunction pending appeal in a case concerning Idaho's abortion statutes and Dr. Stacy Seyb. The panel concluded that Defendants made a strong showing of likely success on the merits and of irreparable injury absent a stay, denied Dr. Seyb's motion to vacate the partial stay, and recognized Appeal No. 26-6068 as a cross appeal consolidated with Appeal Nos. 26-5360 and 26-5558. The order includes a concurrence by Judge Wardlaw, and the caption notes a dissent by Judge Berzon.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit paused a lower court order blocking Idaho's abortion statutes as applied to Dr. Stacy Seyb pending appeal, and consolidated Appeal No. 26-6068, a counter-appeal, with related appeals.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-26-6068 / USCOURTS-ca9-26-6068-0 (opens in a new tab)
• CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. MULLIN, ET AL. (No. 26-7139; filed 2026-10-30) — The Ninth Circuit denied the Federal Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction in California Nurses Association v. Mullin and denied as moot their request for an administrative stay. The order describes the Department of Homeland Security's Unlawful Voter Initiative and its August 31, 2026 Surge Initiative Guidance, and recounts that the district court held that only CNA/NNU had associational standing and enjoined certain elections-related field operations in nine states involving persons believed to be U.S. citizens. The standing analysis in the source text is truncated.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit denied the federal defendants' request to pause a preliminary injunction during appeal in California Nurses Association v. Mullin, and found their request for a temporary pause moot.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-26-7139 / USCOURTS-ca9-26-7139-0 (opens in a new tab)
• USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. (No. 26-7231; filed 2026-10-30) — The Ninth Circuit denied the United States' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal in United States v. California, which sought an order requiring California and Los Angeles County to sequester and verify the citizenship of vote-by-mail ballots from individuals identified as likely noncitizens. The panel held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the temporary restraining order and concluded that the United States had not shown that the law and facts clearly favor its position under 18 U.S.C. § 611 and the Elections Clause. The order notes a dissent by Judge Bumatay, and the remainder of the merits analysis is truncated in the source text.
• In plain terms The Ninth Circuit denied the United States' emergency bid to require California and Los Angeles County to verify citizenship of mail ballots from people identified as likely noncitizens, with a dissent by Judge Bumatay.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca9-26-7231 / USCOURTS-ca9-26-7231-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

• Carl Schneider, et al v. Chris Schneider (No. 23-01806; filed 2026-10-30) — In a nonprecedential order, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a judgment entered in the Western District of Wisconsin in favor of Carl Schneider and Mary Schneider, as trustees of a family trust, against Chris Schneider. The district court found that Chris Schneider violated Wisconsin law and fiduciary duties through company loans, dividends, and rent subsidies, and found Chris Schneider personally liable for civil theft, with exemplary damages totaling $321,330. The court dismissed Hybrid Car Store, Inc. from the appeal on the receiver's objection, leaving only the individual-capacity claims against Chris Schneider.
• In plain terms In a nonprecedential order, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a Western District of Wisconsin judgment for trustees Carl and Mary Schneider against Chris Schneider, who was held personally liable for civil theft with $321,330 in exemplary damages.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-23-01806 / USCOURTS-ca7-23-01806-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Suleyman Karakus v. Todd W. Blanche (No. 25-03106; filed 2026-10-30) — In a nonprecedential order, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Suleyman Karakus of two Board of Immigration Appeals orders. The orders denied a motion to reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel and a motion to remand to consider an application for cancellation of removal. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the adverse credibility finding rested on Suleyman Karakus's own sworn hearing testimony and that the record lacked evidence that medical care in Türkiye for a child's condition would be inadequate.
• In plain terms In a nonprecedential order, the Seventh Circuit denied Suleyman Karakus's petition for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals orders, finding no abuse of discretion in denying reopening based on prior counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca7-25-03106 / USCOURTS-ca7-25-03106-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• Clifton Murie v. Northwestern Michigan College, et al (No. 26-01152; filed 2026-10-30) — In a not-recommended-for-publication opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Western District of Michigan's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and summary judgment rulings in a suit by Clifton Murie against Northwestern Michigan College and several employees. The claims concerned First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution arising from a 2019 trespass prosecution and a 2021 college disciplinary ruling. The court held that the retaliation claim based on the 2019 arrest was time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations, and that the complaint did not plead facts plausibly showing the alleged false statements to police were made because of the protected speech attempt.
• In plain terms In an unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal and summary judgment for Northwestern Michigan College and its employees in Clifton Murie's suit, holding his 2019-arrest retaliation claim time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca6-26-01152 / USCOURTS-ca6-26-01152-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

• Flux Drive, et al v. Sparks, et al (No. 25-01308; filed 2026-10-30) — In consolidated appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the District of Colorado's dismissal of the Flux Drive plaintiffs' claims against the Rong Defendants (John Qiang Rong, Zyrcon Global Strategies LLP, and Leigh Wang) for lack of personal jurisdiction, along with two subsequent attorneys' fee awards under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201. The opinion describes the trade-secret allegations and the parties' competing affidavits on jurisdictional facts. The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirmed all three district court orders.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Flux Drive's claims against the Rong Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, along with two later attorneys' fee awards.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-01308 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-01308-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Cozy Inn, Incorporated, et al v. City of Salina, Kansas (No. 25-03225; filed 2026-10-30) — The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District of Kansas's grant of summary judgment to Cozy Inn and Stephen Howard on First Amendment claims against the City of Salina, Kansas, concerning the city's sign code and its handling of a sign permit application for a painted wall display. The opinion explains that the sign code requires permits for signs, while murals are not regulated, and that the city placed the permit application on hold in February 2024. The plaintiffs had sought a declaration that the sign code and its enforcement are a content-based restriction on speech and an unlawful prior restraint. The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirmed.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cozy Inn and Stephen Howard on First Amendment claims against Salina, Kansas, over its sign code and a painted-wall sign permit application.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-25-03225 / USCOURTS-ca10-25-03225-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Flux Drive, et al v. Sparks, et al (No. 26-01013; filed 2026-10-30) — In Case No. 26-1013, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the District of Colorado's order awarding attorneys' fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201 to the Rong Defendants after their dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. That same order certified the dismissal for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and entered a final judgment. The appeal was consolidated with Nos. 25-1308 and 26-1292, and the court affirmed the order in an opinion filed October 30, 2026.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit affirmed an attorneys' fee award to the Rong Defendants, made after their jurisdictional dismissal, in an opinion filed October 30, 2026.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01013 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01013-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Flux Drive, et al v. Rong, et al (No. 26-01292; filed 2026-10-30) — In Case No. 26-1292, captioned Flux Drive, et al v. Rong, et al, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the District of Colorado's supplemental attorneys' fee award to the Rong Defendants for fees incurred after their original fee motion. The district court had granted the supplemental motion with a slight modification. The court affirmed the supplemental award as part of its consolidated opinion filed October 30, 2026, and affirmed all three district court orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• In plain terms The Tenth Circuit affirmed a supplemental attorneys' fee award to the Rong Defendants for fees incurred after their original fee motion, in an opinion filed October 30, 2026.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca10-26-01292 / USCOURTS-ca10-26-01292-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• Faith Rashidiasl v. Upper Dublin School District (No. 26-01579; filed 2026-10-30) — The Third Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of Faith Rashidiasl's amended complaint, which asserted Title VII, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the Upper Dublin School District and its counsel. The court held that the district court applied the correct plausibility standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to amend, and would not consider arguments that were not developed in the briefing. The opinion is not precedential.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Faith Rashidiasl's amended complaint against the Upper Dublin School District and its counsel; the opinion is not binding precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-01579 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-01579-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Ludwig Zelaya Romero v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al (No. 26-01730; filed 2026-10-30) — The Third Circuit summarily affirmed the Western District of Pennsylvania's denial of Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, which sought First Step Act time credits. The court held that under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), a federal prisoner who is the subject of a final order of removal is ineligible for those credits, and that the expedited removal order issued against him in November 2024 became final on issuance because it was not subject to administrative appeal. The opinion is not precedential.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Ludwig Criss Zelaya Romero's petition for First Step Act time credits, holding that a prisoner under a final removal order is ineligible; the opinion is not binding precedent.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-01730 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-01730-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Green Trevor v. Mumin, et al (No. 26-01851; filed 2026-10-30) — The Third Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal with prejudice of Green Muniyr Trevor's amended complaint, which raised constitutional and other claims against Pennsylvania and school district officials and a charter school arising from a school dress code policy. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a First Amendment free exercise violation, a substantive due process violation, or a Contract Clause violation, and it did not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or claims the appellant abandoned. The opinion is not precedential.
• In plain terms The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Green Muniyr Trevor's amended complaint over a school dress code policy; the court found no plausible First Amendment, substantive due process, or Contract Clause violation.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-01 — appellate court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-30)
• Source: USCOURTS-ca3-26-01851 / USCOURTS-ca3-26-01851-0 (opens in a new tab)

United States Court of International Trade

• Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00219; filed 2024-05-09) — Slip Op. 24-53, dated May 1, 2024, is a Court of International Trade opinion and order by Judge Claire R. Kelly addressing consolidated motions for judgment on the agency record concerning the Department of Commerce's final determination in the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China. The plaintiffs challenge 12 determinations, including Commerce's selection of Romanian HTS 7007.19.80 data to value solar glass, its valuation of ocean and air freight, its calculation of surrogate financial ratios, and its application of adverse facts available. The bracketed summary states that the court sustains in part and remands in part Commerce's determination, and the text provided is truncated before the court's final holdings.
• In plain terms Slip Op. 24-53, dated May 1, 2024, is a Court of International Trade opinion that sustains in part and remands in part Commerce's 2019–2020 antidumping review determination on crystalline silicon solar cells from China.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00219; filed 2025-06-06) — Slip Op. 25-67, dated May 30, 2025 and filed June 6, 2025, is a Court of International Trade opinion and order by Judge Claire R. Kelly reviewing Commerce's redetermination on remand in the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. The court sustains Commerce's use of Freightos data to value air freight and remands Commerce's selection of Romanian HTS 7007.19.80 data to value solar glass and its calculation of an adverse inference using facts otherwise available. The opinion notes that plaintiffs challenged Commerce's decision to make no changes following the court's earlier remand order.
• In plain terms Slip Op. 25-67, dated May 30, 2025 and filed June 6, 2025, is a Court of International Trade opinion that sustains Commerce's air freight valuation and remands its solar glass valuation and adverse inference calculation.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219-1 (opens in a new tab)
• Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00219; filed 2026-03-30) — Slip Op. 26-30, dated March 30, 2026, is a Court of International Trade opinion and order by Judge Claire R. Kelly reviewing Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, filed September 26, 2025, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. The bracketed summary states that the court sustains in part and remands in part Commerce's redetermination. The background recounts that the court's earlier decision in Jinko II had sustained the air freight valuation and remanded the solar glass valuation and the adverse inference methodology, and the text provided is truncated before the court's holdings on the second remand.
• In plain terms Slip Op. 26-30, dated March 30, 2026, is a Court of International Trade opinion that sustains in part and remands in part Commerce's redetermination filed September 26, 2025, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219-2 (opens in a new tab)
• Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00219; filed 2026-10-29) — Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, is a Court of International Trade opinion by Judge Claire R. Kelly that sustains Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, filed August 13, 2026, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On third remand, Commerce reopened the record and requested CONNUM-specific glass conversion factors from Jinko and Risen when reconsidering its valuation of solar glass. The court states that the redetermination is sustained for the reasons it gives, and the text provided is truncated during the discussion section.
• In plain terms Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, is a Court of International Trade opinion that sustains Commerce's redetermination on remand, filed August 13, 2026, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00219-3 (opens in a new tab)
• Trina Solar Co., Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00220; filed 2026-10-29) — Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, in Trina Solar Co., Ltd. et al v. United States (Consol. Court No. 22-00219), is an opinion by Judge Claire R. Kelly of the U.S. Court of International Trade. It sustains the Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China. The discussion addresses Commerce's reopening of the record to request CONNUM-specific glass conversion factors from Jinko Solar and Risen Energy in reconsidering the valuation of solar glass.
• In plain terms In Trina Solar v. United States, Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, sustains Commerce's remand redetermination dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00220 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00220-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00221; filed 2026-10-29) — Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, in Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States (Consol. Court No. 22-00219), is an opinion by Judge Claire R. Kelly of the U.S. Court of International Trade. It sustains the Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China. The discussion addresses Commerce's reopening of the record to request CONNUM-specific glass conversion factors from Jinko Solar and Risen Energy in reconsidering the valuation of solar glass.
• In plain terms In Risen Energy v. United States, Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, sustains Commerce's remand redetermination dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00221 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00221-0 (opens in a new tab)
• JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. et al v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00223; filed 2026-10-29) — Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, in JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. et al v. United States (Consol. Court No. 22-00219), is an opinion by Judge Claire R. Kelly of the U.S. Court of International Trade. It sustains the Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China. The discussion addresses Commerce's reopening of the record to request CONNUM-specific glass conversion factors from Jinko Solar and Risen Energy in reconsidering the valuation of solar glass.
• In plain terms In JA Solar Technology Yangzhou v. United States, Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, sustains Commerce's remand redetermination dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00223 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00223-0 (opens in a new tab)
• BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States (No. 1:22-cv-00226; filed 2026-10-29) — Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, in BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States (Consol. Court No. 22-00219), is an opinion by Judge Claire R. Kelly of the U.S. Court of International Trade. It sustains the Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China. The discussion addresses Commerce's reopening of the record to request CONNUM-specific glass conversion factors from Jinko Solar and Risen Energy in reconsidering the valuation of solar glass.
• In plain terms In BYD (Shangluo) Industrial v. United States, Slip Op. 26-133, dated October 29, 2026, sustains Commerce's remand redetermination dated August 13, 2026, in the 2019–20 antidumping review.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00226 / USCOURTS-cit-1_22-cv-00226-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Citribel N.V. v. United States (No. 1:24-cv-00010; filed 2025-08-22) — Slip Op. 25-110, dated August 22, 2025, in Citribel N.V. v. United States (Court No. 24-00010), is an opinion by Judge M. Miller Baker of the U.S. Court of International Trade. It remands to the Department of Commerce for reconsideration of its calculation of Citribel's costs of production in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid from Belgium, where Citribel contested the use of annualized rather than quarterly conversion costs. The court also declines to redact certain record material that it finds does not qualify as business proprietary information under 19 C.F.R. § 351.105(c).
• In plain terms Slip Op. 25-110, dated August 22, 2025, is a Court of International Trade opinion that remands Commerce's production cost calculation for Citribel for reconsideration in an antidumping review of citric acid from Belgium, and declines to redact certain record material.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00010 / USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00010-0 (opens in a new tab)
• Citribel N.V. v. United States (No. 1:24-cv-00010; filed 2026-10-29) — This is Document 95 in Citribel N.V. v. United States, Case No. 1:24-cv-00010-MMB, filed October 29, 2026. The provided text contains only the filing header, with no substantive body content to summarize.
• In plain terms Document 95 in Citribel N.V. v. United States, Case No. 1:24-cv-00010-MMB, was filed October 29, 2026, and contains only a filing header with no substantive body content.
• Included because: USCOURTS-SEL-02 — national court opinion (all listed) (document dated 2026-10-29)
• Source: USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00010 / USCOURTS-cit-1_24-cv-00010-1 (opens in a new tab)

5.2 Counts by Court Category

Archive-window disclosure (rule USCOURTS-FETCH-01): 34657 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 2026-10-31 (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.

FDA Email Updates (email)

• FDA MedWatch - Instrumentation Laboratories Removes HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgG (PF4-H) — dated 2026-10-31 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 (the bulletin named no canonical page)

NASA News Releases

• APOD: 2026 October 31 – Night on a Spooky Planet (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-31 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

• Keeping care connected: How VA Direct supports Veterans (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-31 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)

White House Briefing Room

• Presidential Message on Reformation Day (opens in a new tab) — dated 2026-10-31 by the agency
• Included because: AGENCYPR-SEL-01 — official agency release dated this day by the agency (all such releases from active sources are listed; titles only in the pilot)

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

Roll-call votes the chambers themselves record on 2026-10-31, 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 2026-10-31, 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 2026-10-31. 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 2026-11-01T04:00:05Z · CREC: completed 2026-11-01T04:00:05Z · FR: completed 2026-11-01T04:00:06Z · PLAW: completed 2026-11-01T04:00:11Z · USCOURTS: completed 2026-11-01T04:00:07Z; last watermarks as listed in the header.

Exclusion rules applied today:

• USCOURTS-EX-01: district court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 1286 item(s)
• USCOURTS-EX-02: bankruptcy court opinions counted, not individually summarized — 9 item(s)
• AGENCYPR-EX-01: release dated outside this day by the agency (feed backfill / newly activated source) — counted, not listed — 1 item(s)

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

Known gaps: 6 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 2026-10-31.

Selection rules, summarization prompts, and thresholds are versioned in this repository and identified by the pipeline version in the header (bee2e7ce). 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 2026-10-31; 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).