Charles Greenwood v. Express Technologies Ltd. — 7th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

The Ninth Circuit considers a married couple's defamation suit over an Arizona police press release. After the Burtons were arrested in 2019, police published a post describing alleged fraud in business dealings and food-stamp benefits. A court commissioner had already ordered their release, finding insufficient grounds to keep them in custody. The Burtons say the post presented disputed accusations as established facts and harmed their reputations. The district court ended their case without a trial, finding the post substantially true when read in context. That doctrine allows minor inaccuracies if they do not materially change the publication's overall sting. Their lawyer will ask for a jury to decide the disputed facts; the state will defend the judge's ruling. Listen for the difference between accurately reporting criminal charges and asserting that someone actually committed the underlying wrongdoing.

The Ninth Circuit reviews the firing of four Washington financial-regulation employees who sought religious accommodations from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The agency processed their requests without scrutinizing their beliefs, but found it could not accommodate them; they remained unvaccinated and lost their jobs. They sued under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, and Washington law. The district court held their objections did not establish the required religious conflict and dismissed their claims without a trial. Their lawyer will challenge that conclusion; the agency will defend it. For Carolyn Sabin, it will also argue that remote work would impose an undue hardship. That requires substantial increased costs in the context of the employer's operations, not just an inconvenience. You'll also hear Detwiler: a precedent about religious objections to COVID testing, not vaccination, distinguishing religious practice from personal medical judgments. The appeal asks whether the evidence supports deciding the case as a matter of law or requires a jury.

The Ninth Circuit hears Hassan Bratcher's challenge to his kidnapping and rape convictions. A woman identified as Jane Doe alleged he held her against her will and sexually assaulted her; he disputed coercion. His first conviction was reversed after a deliberating juror was improperly removed. He was convicted again at a second trial. This appeal centers on an omitted jury instruction: to treat certain unrecorded oral statements attributed to the defendant as showing guilt with caution. The federal district court denied relief, finding no reasonable probability of a different result given the other evidence and credibility instructions. Bratcher's lawyer will argue that failing to secure the instruction undermined his defense; the state will argue that the evidence still supported the verdict. You'll hear Strickland: the test for constitutionally ineffective lawyering, requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice. This is federal habeas review of the state conviction, not a new trial.

The Seventh Circuit considers Indiana's decision to stop accepting university-issued IDs for in-person voting. For years, cards from public universities could qualify if they met the state's ordinary photo-ID requirements. Senate Bill Ten changed that. An Indiana University student who had used his campus card to vote joined two civic groups in suing state and local officials. The district judge temporarily blocked the change, finding likely unconstitutional voting burdens. The appeals court then paused that order because early voting had already begun. A stay pauses an order; it is not a final decision on whether the law is constitutional. Indiana will argue that the change simplifies ID checks and treats voters alike. The challengers will contend that rejecting otherwise qualifying student IDs makes voting harder without advancing the state's goals. The dispute turns on how courts weigh voting burdens against the state's election interests.

The Ninth Circuit hears Mitchell Jenkins's appeal of a conviction for resisting issuance of a citation by a federal land-management officer. Jenkins said his car was overheating when he left the road near Las Vegas, drove past construction barriers and stopped in the desert. A Bureau of Land Management ranger encountered him in an area closed to vehicles. The district judge upheld the conviction, finding enough evidence that the spot was public land and Jenkins knew it. His lawyer will argue that knowing an area is closed does not establish knowing it is BLM land; the government will defend the evidence as sufficient. The court will also address whether prosecutors can rely on a legal position they did not advance below. Jenkins also challenges a map used as evidence. Authentication means showing an exhibit is what the offering party says it is. Hearsay concerns someone's out-of-court statement offered as proof of what it says.