James Randall Rogers v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison — 11th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026)

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over Hain Celestial's baby-food labels. Buyers sued over promotional statements about nutrient levels on the company's food packages. They say those statements violate an FDA rule generally restricting such claims on food intended specifically for children under two. They also say the claims inflated prices. Hain points to age-two-and-up notices and argues the products are intended for a wider group. The district court granted Hain summary judgment, resolving the claims without trial, and denied class certification, which would let the buyers pursue the case for other purchasers. On appeal, the buyers challenge both rulings. One question is what intended specifically means, and whether the company's marketing evidence creates a factual dispute for a jury. The other concerns California's Unfair Competition Law. May buyers seek a shared price-overcharge recovery without showing that the class relied on the allegedly unlawful parts of the labels? The company says the proposed class wrongly includes people buying for older children or themselves. The buyers answer that everyone paid a price increased by the allegedly unlawful labels.

The Ninth Circuit hears the state's appeal in a case involving Alan Williams. Williams was convicted in a shooting case where the gunman's identity was disputed. He says his lawyer failed to investigate two witnesses who would have said he was not the shooter. One of them was a victim of the shooting. A federal judge heard the witnesses and ruled that the omission could have changed the verdict. The state seeks reversal, emphasizing the other evidence against Williams and the deference owed to the state court's rejection of his claim. Two standards shape the argument. Under Strickland, ineffective assistance generally requires both deficient representation and a reasonable probability of a different result, not certainty. Under AEDPA, the federal habeas law, disagreement with a state court is not enough. For the legal issue argued here, its application of Supreme Court law must be objectively unreasonable, beyond fair-minded disagreement. The lawyers also distinguish the evidence before the state court from testimony gathered years later in federal court. De novo means reviewing an issue afresh, rather than deferring to an earlier decision.

The Second Circuit hears National Retail Federation versus James. New York requires a notice when a business offers a consumer a price set by an algorithm using that consumer's personal data. The required words are: This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data. The law does not generally ban that pricing practice. The retail federation sued New York's attorney general, saying that forcing its members to display this message violates the First Amendment. It says personal data can make ordinary discounts sound like intrusive surveillance, and small advertisements may leave no room to explain. New York says the notice provides factual information so customers can understand and compare prices. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the federation had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation. The federation seeks another chance to develop its evidence. The lawyers repeatedly invoke Zauderer: a more deferential First Amendment test for certain required commercial disclosures that are purely factual and uncontroversial. The dispute is whether this notice qualifies, and whether that question could be decided without developing a factual record.

The Sixth Circuit hears the government's appeal from a judgment acquitting Sherif Khalil. Khalil operated Spectra Clinical Labs, which tested urine samples and billed Medicare. Prosecutors alleged that he paid marketers to generate unlawful testing business, including orders doctors had not authorized. A jury found him guilty of two conspiracy counts, but the trial judge set that verdict aside for insufficient evidence. The government says the evidence supported the jury's decision; Khalil says it did not show the unlawful agreement and knowledge required to convict him. Two legal distinctions will recur. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits certain knowing and willful payments to induce referrals for services covered by federal health programs. The dispute includes whether these commissions were unlawful kickbacks or payments for legitimate marketing. The lawyers also discuss overt acts: steps taken to advance an alleged conspiracy. And Rule Twenty-Nine permits a judge to enter an acquittal when the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. That review asks whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the prosecution's favor.

The Sixth Circuit hears Blount Pride's appeal over officials' response to a drag performance at its 2023 festival. Before the event at Maryville College, District Attorney Ryan Desmond sent organizers and local officials a letter saying he would prosecute violations of Tennessee's Adult Entertainment Act. That law restricts certain adult-oriented performances harmful to minors, not drag performances generally. The plaintiffs say the letter and Police Chief Tony Crisp's contacts with the venue were efforts to suppress their event. The officials say they were explaining and enforcing the law. The festival went ahead under a temporary court order, but the district court later dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs now seek to revive claims over the officials' conduct, not a direct challenge to the Act. They seek two forms of relief: an injunction against future interference, and damages from Desmond for alleged retaliation. Standing concerns whether a plaintiff has an injury the court can remedy; past harm alone does not necessarily justify an order about future conduct. Qualified immunity can protect an official from damages unless the conduct violated clearly established law. Here, the court must distinguish the risk of future interference from the separate question of whether the letter unlawfully deterred protected speech.