Hall, et al. v. City of Buffalo — 2d Cir. (Oct 22, 2026)

The Sixth Circuit considers a trade-secret dispute between Ford and InterMotive over a device for modifying commercial vehicles. InterMotive's Upfitter Interface Module helps specialty-vehicle builders connect added equipment to a vehicle's electronics. The companies explored a factory-installed version for Ford. InterMotive says it shared confidential designs and a prototype, only for Ford to pass the technology to another supplier and develop its own module. Ford sued InterMotive, and InterMotive brought counterclaims. A jury found that Ford misappropriated a trade secret and awarded InterMotive about thirteen point two million dollars of Ford's module profits, not profits on entire vehicles. The trial judge left that verdict standing. Ford will argue that InterMotive had disclosed the key features in a different product released in 2014, before Ford sold its own version. That product is the Programmable Relay Power Center, or P R P C. InterMotive will argue that it did not reveal the compact, integrated combination the jury found to be a secret. The other central dispute is disgorgement: requiring Ford to hand over profits caused by the misappropriation. Apportionment means separating those profits from profits attributable to other features. Ford will argue that InterMotive had to make that separation; InterMotive will defend placing the burden of deductions on Ford once causation is established.

The Second Circuit hears four consolidated appeals over New York's prison drug-testing program. In 2019, prisoners were disciplined after urine samples tested positive using Microgenics equipment. The prisoners say false results led to cell confinement, lost privileges, and delayed release. A state investigation found that positive screening results were being checked by repeating the same test, rather than confirmed through a more specific method. The prisoners sued the testing companies and state officials, accusing officials of ignoring mounting warnings that the tests were unreliable. The officials say they reasonably relied on the vendor and investigated the complaints before stopping tests and reversing discipline. These appeals focus on the officials' request for qualified immunity. That protection shields officials from damages when existing law did not give fair warning that their conduct was unlawful. They will argue that no sufficiently similar precedent put them on notice here. The prisoners' lawyer will argue that allowing arbitrary punishment can violate substantive due process, and that disputes over who knew what require a trial. Procedural due process concerns the hearings and safeguards required before punishment; substantive due process limits certain arbitrary government conduct itself. The judges will question both whether a protected liberty interest is at stake and whether these officials' conduct could meet the demanding standard of shocking the conscience.

The Sixth Circuit considers an Ohio prisoner's challenge to the handling of letters from courts. He says prison staff opened his court mail outside his presence and gave him copies rather than the originals. Under the challenged rule, legal senders must register and obtain a control number for each mailing. Mail without a valid number can be treated as ordinary correspondence, which staff may open and read outside the prisoner's presence. Ohio says this prevents contraband disguised as legal mail from entering prisons. The prisoner brought a First Amendment lawsuit. The district court ruled for the officials, finding the policy a reasonable security measure. His lawyer will argue that inspection and copying are not the problem: court mail should be opened in his presence, and he cannot force courts to obtain control numbers. The state will argue that it first needs to authenticate the sender, and that the control-number system provides reliable verification. The Turner test asks whether a restriction reasonably serves legitimate prison-management interests. That involves the fit with the stated goal, other ways to exercise the right, effects on prison operations, and readily available alternatives. The judges will also question why federal court mail receives an exception while state court mail does not.

The Sixth Circuit hears a family's challenge to disputed school attendance and grading records. During online schooling, a student was marked absent and received failing grades. She and her mother say she attended and submitted work, but the electronic system did not reliably record it. The district disputes that account and says staff repeatedly contacted the family and offered ways to document attendance and complete assignments. The family sued, claiming a constitutional right to challenge the errors. The district court entered summary judgment for the school defendants, deciding the case without trial. It found no deprivation of a protected educational interest. The appeal centers on procedural due process: fair procedures when government deprives someone of a protected liberty or property interest. A property interest means a legitimate entitlement, not merely something a person wants. The family's lawyer will argue that state rules and school policies protect accurate records and require a meaningful opportunity to correct them. The district will argue that those rules create no such constitutional entitlement and that its communications and offered alternatives were sufficient. You will also hear FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which provides procedures for seeking corrections to certain education records. The dispute is whether this record-accuracy claim supports constitutional protection, not simply whether a student dislikes a grade.

The Sixth Circuit hears an Ohio teacher's challenge to discipline over books in her classroom. She kept four books featuring LGBTQ characters among books students could choose during free time. She says she neither taught from those books nor required anyone to read them. The district suspended her for three days without pay, citing rules requiring approval of classroom materials. She sued, saying the district's "controversial issues" policy was too vague to provide fair warning of punishable conduct. The district court dismissed her lawsuit before trial, concluding that she should have known these books needed approval. The ruling was a judgment on the pleadings: a decision on the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not a trial of disputed facts. "Void for vagueness" concerns fair notice and limits on arbitrary enforcement. Her lawyer will argue that optional reading is not classroom instruction and that "controversial" gives administrators too much discretion. The district will defend its approval rules as sufficiently clear in a school workplace. It will also argue that a separate, unchallenged guideline independently justifies the suspension. That raises redressability, one requirement for standing: could the requested court ruling actually remedy her injury? Her lawyer will dispute that the second rule applies to these books at all.