Victor Rexrode v. DOWCP — 4th Cir. (Oct 28, 2026)

The Fourth Circuit hears Ryan Bieber's challenge to evidence used in his criminal trial. A jury convicted him of transporting child sexual abuse material after Google reported files associated with his account to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. That center passes reports to law enforcement. The trial judge admitted Google Drive records, and the appeal asks whether their use violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. A hash value is a code calculated from a file's contents. The Confrontation Clause generally protects a defendant's opportunity to cross-examine people whose statements serve as testimony against him. Federal law requires providers to report facts they actually know that indicate apparent child-pornography offenses. The law does not itself require them to monitor users or search their communications. Stephanie Kessler will argue for Bieber.

The Seventh Circuit hears a challenge to Illinois's ban on possessing firearm suppressors, also called silencers. These devices reduce a gunshot's noise rather than making it silent. Four Illinois firearm owners sued state officials because they want to use suppressors for lawful activities. They cite hearing protection, quieter target practice, hunting, and self-defense as reasons for wanting them. One plaintiff says target-shooting noise led neighbors to call police to his property. The district judge dismissed the suits, concluding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly shown suppressors were arms within the Second Amendment's historical meaning. The plaintiffs now appeal. The dispute is whether constitutional protection extends to suppressors themselves or to using them with firearms. Peter Patterson will argue for the challengers.

The Ninth Circuit hears a prisoner's civil-rights case arising from a search in a Nevada prison gym. Edward Edgerton was using a kiosk to download music when correctional officer Alexander Hillard ordered him to stop. Edgerton says he then complied with the order to stand for a search, but Hillard repeatedly kicked his feet and ankles. Hillard disputes that account and says the force was justified by noncompliance. Edgerton, who is Black, also alleges racial discrimination. The district court denied summary judgment, a request to end the case without a trial, because material facts were disputed. It also refused qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect officials from civil damages unless they violated a clearly established federal right. Hillard now challenges that pretrial ruling. The dispute includes whether this appeal raises a reviewable legal question or instead asks the judges to revisit disputed facts. Chris Davis will represent Hillard.

The Fourth Circuit considers Virginia's limits on minors' use of social media. Senate Bill eight fifty-four requires covered platforms to check whether users are younger than sixteen, and impose a one-hour daily limit per service or application. Parents may increase or decrease that limit. NetChoice, a trade association for internet companies, sued Virginia's attorney general, arguing the law restricts the speech rights of platforms and users. A district judge granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely violates the First Amendment. That preliminary injunction is an interim order, not a final judgment on the whole case. Virginia will argue that the adjustable default helps parents address harmful platform features rather than censoring a message. NetChoice will argue that parental permission does not cure a state-imposed restriction on protected speech. Breckenridge will speak for Virginia.

The Fourth Circuit hears United States versus Che Lark, a challenge to a guilty plea that led to a twenty-year sentence. Police found drugs in Lark's lap during an encounter in a car. Prosecutors say he fled and fatally struck a pedestrian. He pleaded guilty to possessing heroin and methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Lark will contend his lawyer wrongly told him prosecutors would be limited to the drug quantity agreed to in the plea's factual statement. At sentencing, prosecutors instead argued for substantially more drugs, and the judge imposed twenty years. The appeal turns on prejudice: whether the mistaken advice affected his decision to plead guilty. His claim depends on showing a reasonable probability that correct advice would have led him to choose a trial, and that rejecting the plea would have been rational. That does not mean he must prove he would have won at trial. Richard Weston will speak for Lark.