Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. — D.C. Cir. (Sep 28, 2026)

The Ninth Circuit hears the government's appeal over the dismissal of charges against Carlitos Ricardo Parias. He was shot during an immigration arrest in Los Angeles, then charged with assaulting a federal officer. A criminal court approved his release on bail, but ICE transferred him to immigration detention in Adelanto. Permission requirements and scheduling barriers then kept his defense lawyers from consulting with him as trial approached. The district court found a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and dismissed the indictment with prejudice. With prejudice means prosecutors cannot simply refile the same charges. The government will argue that ending the prosecution was too drastic and that lesser remedies were available. Parias will contend that delay would not fix the access problems and would unfairly let prosecutors repair their troubled case. The argument also contrasts the Bail Reform Act, governing release before a criminal trial, with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which separately authorizes immigration detention.

The Fourth Circuit hears Jonathan Green's challenge to his placement on South Carolina's sex-offender registry. A Virginia juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent as a teenager. After his family moved to South Carolina, the local sheriff's office told him to register or face arrest. Green says that requirement was unlawful. He sued for damages and an order removing his information. South Carolina later approved his removal from registration, but the dispute continued over retained historical records. The district court dismissed the damages claims as too late, distinguishing an ongoing unlawful act from the continuing effects of an old act. Green will argue that repeated changes to his registry status and failure to correct it amounted to continuing violations, not merely lasting harm. The defendants will contend that the damages claims came too late and that the remaining records do not justify an order to erase them. An injunction is a court order telling someone to do or stop doing something.

The Seventh Circuit considers how far police could go after a traffic stop in Wisconsin. After roadside searches found no drugs, deputies handcuffed Justin Bartz, took him to the county jail, and used a body scanner to look for concealed contraband. The scan found no drugs, and he was released. He sued the county and its officers for what he says were unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled for the defendants, finding that officers already had probable cause to arrest him and that the additional searches were reasonable. Bartz's lawyer will argue that the detention was used to gather the evidence needed to justify an arrest, rather than to secure a prompt check by a judge. The defendants will argue that the officers could gather more evidence after an arrest that was already justified. The judges also ask about qualified immunity, which can protect individual officers from damages when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

The Fourth Circuit hears a challenge to the Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Point Farm Mitigation Bank in coastal South Carolina. Mitigation banks provide credits developers can use to compensate for permitted wetland damage elsewhere. The plaintiffs say this bank generates credits by preserving marsh that already had legal protection. So, in their view, the credits do not provide a real environmental offset. The government disputes that premise. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, treating construction-related harms as over and future development harms as too speculative. Standing requires a concrete personal injury connected to the challenged approval that a court can remedy. The plaintiffs will argue that ongoing credit sales still threaten wetlands they use and enjoy. The government will argue that those concerns depend on hypothetical projects, and that reversing this approval would not remedy the claimed harm. The appeal is about who can bring suit, not yet whether the bank was lawfully approved.

The Fourth Circuit considers whether Timothy Guess can bring another challenge to his federal sentence after receiving a sentence reduction. A judge shortened his prison term but did not give him the full reduction he requested. The order he received did not explain the judge's reasons, a problem noted in the earlier appeal of that reduction. Section twenty-two fifty-five allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their convictions or sentences. But strict rules limit second or successive motions. The judges will explore two different ideas: whether a later reduction creates a new judgment, and whether a newly arising claim should count as a repeat challenge. Guess seeks to have his proposed motion treated as a first motion. This hearing concerns whether the motion can proceed, not whether its underlying challenge should win.