Jenkins v. Miller — 2d Cir. (Oct 23, 2026)

The Ninth Circuit hears consolidated appeals from a civil securities case involving sales of investments in Elite Aerospace Group. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused people involved in the offerings of concealing sales commissions and understating how much investors' money went toward offering costs. Its complaint describes commissions of fifteen percent on new investments, without corresponding disclosure to investors. A jury later found securities-law violations, and five defendants are challenging the resulting judgments. Much of the argument concerns evidence from an earlier SEC enforcement case involving some of the participants. That earlier matter ended in settlement. The appellants contend that letting the jury hear about it unfairly tainted this trial. The SEC will defend its use to explain the participants' relationship and knowledge, rather than to prove that they committed the earlier alleged violations. Rule four-oh-three allows a court to exclude relevant evidence when its value in proving a point is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice. That means a risk of deciding the case on an improper basis, not merely evidence that hurts one side. A limiting instruction tells jurors the particular purpose for which they may use evidence. Whether the court properly weighed those risks, and whether an instruction was enough, are central questions here. The appeal also concerns financial remedies imposed after the jury verdict. Disgorgement seeks repayment of wrongful profits; it is distinct from a civil fine. The judges will consider the appellants' argument that a jury, rather than the judge, should have determined the financial relief. John van Loben Sels will speak first for the five appellants, seeking reversal and a new trial. The SEC will ask the court to uphold the verdict and remedies.

The Sixth Circuit considers a plea offer that never reached a teenage defendant. In 2000, fourteen-year-old Chris McGorman shot and killed a classmate in a barn behind his home in Kentucky. He confessed, but his defense at trial was insanity. The jury convicted him of murder, and he received a life sentence. Before trial, prosecutors offered a twenty-year sentence if he pleaded guilty. His lawyer told his parents about the offer, and they rejected it. McGorman says he never received it and would have accepted it. State courts denied relief, reasoning that he would have followed his parents and gone to trial anyway. A federal district court later granted relief on the plea claim. The warden now appeals. This is a habeas corpus case, a challenge to the legality of state custody, not a new trial over the killing. The Strickland test requires constitutionally deficient lawyering and resulting prejudice. The warden concedes that the lawyer should have conveyed the offer directly. The disputed part is prejudice: whether, with competent advice, there is a reasonable probability that McGorman would have accepted, prosecutors would have kept the offer available, the court would have approved it, and the outcome would have been less severe. You will also hear AEDPA, the federal law limiting habeas relief. Under Title Twenty-Eight, Section Twenty-Two Fifty-Four, disagreement with a state court is not enough. This appeal centers on whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law. Jack Heyburn will argue first for the warden, asking the court to reverse the federal ruling. Dennis Burke will represent McGorman, seeking to preserve that relief. He will contend that the state courts wrongly used the parents' control of the defense to excuse the harm caused by counsel's failure.

The D.C. Circuit considers competing challenges to a federal rule on ship pollution. Ships take in ballast water to maintain balance and stability as cargo changes. When they release that water elsewhere, they can also release living organisms carried from another place, potentially spreading invasive species. Congress passed the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act in 2018 to replace a patchwork of discharge requirements with a national framework. EPA sets pollution-control standards; the Coast Guard develops implementing rules. EPA published the rule challenged here in October 2024. The challengers petitioned the court directly to review that agency action, rather than appealing a trial about one pollution incident. The first part concerns Lakers: vessels operating exclusively in the Great Lakes region. EPA exempted this fleet from numeric ballast-water limits, citing difficult operating conditions. But it required covered new Lakers to install, operate, and maintain treatment equipment. Existing Lakers were not given that equipment requirement, although other management requirements still apply. The Lake Carriers' Association will argue that EPA lacks authority to impose this equipment mandate and did not adequately establish that the systems will work on these ships. Environmental groups take the opposite position on older Lakers: they say EPA failed to justify leaving them without the equipment requirement. Michigan and supporting states also challenge the removal of an earlier precaution against taking in ballast water in high-risk conditions. Best management practices are pollution-prevention measures; whether that term permits a major equipment mandate is disputed here. Best available technology economically achievable is a standard involving technology, engineering, and costs. Anti-backsliding generally bars weaker requirements, subject to specified exceptions, including previously unavailable information or a material technical mistake. The panel will ask what the statute authorizes and whether EPA reasonably explained its choices. Varu Chilakamarri will argue first for the carriers. Wendy Bloom will speak for the environmental groups. Elizabeth Morrisseau, a Michigan Assistant Attorney General, will address the uptake issue for the supporting states. Alex Hardee will defend EPA's rule. Later, the hearing turns to California's separate challenges.

A family challenges the disclosure of recordings made by security cameras inside their home. A dispute between a father and son became a physical confrontation. The children's mother gave the footage to Child Protective Services, which passed it to Miami Township police. The father later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Before the criminal records were sealed, the township gave a member of the public access to a redacted video in response to a records request. The children's faces were blurred and their names removed, but the family says they could still be identified and private conversations remained exposed. The father and his three children sued the township and its law director, Joseph Braun. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, deciding the claims without a trial. The family now appeals. This is a civil privacy case, not an appeal from the father's conviction. Ohio Revised Code Section Twenty-One Fifty-One Point Four Two Three requires agencies receiving confidential child-protection information to keep it confidential, rather than release it as an ordinary public record. But violating a state confidentiality rule does not automatically establish a federal constitutional violation. Procedural due process concerns safeguards before the government takes away a protected interest. The family will argue that it needed a better chance to prevent disclosure. The township will point to its warnings, consultations with the father's lawyers, and redactions. Listen for the judges' concern that the children's interests might differ from their father's. Substantive due process raises a different question: whether the disclosure itself violated a constitutionally protected privacy right. You will hear stigma-plus, shorthand for the principle that reputational injury alone is not enough. The parties dispute whether that framework properly addresses this confidentiality claim. Qualified immunity can protect an individual official from damages when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established. It does not protect the township itself. Separate Ohio immunity rules affect the state-law privacy claim. Robert Thompson will argue first for the family, seeking reversal. Katie Barbiere will represent the township and Braun, asking the panel to leave the judgment in place.

A Roundup personal-injury lawsuit has settled, but a fight remains over the lawyers' fees. Although Monsanto appears in the case name, the two sides you will hear are arguing about compensation among lawyers on the plaintiffs' side. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Monsanto's weedkiller caused cancer. Many federal cases were brought before one judge for shared pretrial work through multidistrict litigation, or M D L. The cases remained individual lawsuits; an M D L is not automatically a class action. In 2021, Judge Vince Chhabria set a holdback of eight percent of a plaintiff's gross recovery for a common-benefit fund. Crucially, it was to come from the attorney-fee portion, not an additional deduction from the client's net recovery. The fund was meant to allow compensation for work benefiting other cases, but setting money aside did not guarantee that lead counsel would ultimately receive it. A January 2022 filing by both sides listed the Koen case as ready to return to the Western District of Texas. As you will hear, the appealing side says substantial individual litigation followed before settlement. Their position is that they were not free riders simply collecting the benefit of someone else's work. The dispute is whether shared work justifies the full assessment despite that later individual effort, and despite fees leadership lawyers earned from their own clients. A special master is a court-appointed person who can investigate issues and recommend a result. The judge may reject a recommendation; the question here includes whether the judge adequately explained his decision. You will also hear about Federal Rule Sixteen Point One. It calls for considering how leadership counsel should be compensated, but does not set an eight-percent fee. The panel will examine the source and limits of the court's authority, not just which division of money seems fair. Leslie Brueckner will argue first for the appellants, seeking a refund or reduced assessment. Robert Quigley will represent the leadership side, arguing that the shared work supplied essential parts of the individual case and that the judge's allocation should stand.