Peters v. City of Torrington — 2d Cir. (Oct 28, 2026)

A foreign police tip leads to a search of a Washington man's home, a federal conviction, and a challenge to the evidence used against him. Investigators linked an internet address reported by foreign police to his home, obtained a search warrant, and seized electronic devices. A jury convicted him of receiving and possessing child sexual abuse material. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant needs probable cause: a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place searched. His lawyer will argue that the magistrate was given the foreign agency's conclusion without enough explanation of how it obtained the information. You will also hear about a Franks hearing, which tests an allegation that the officer supporting a warrant intentionally or recklessly included a material falsehood. Getting that hearing requires a substantial preliminary showing, not merely suspicion. Finally, a Faretta inquiry checks whether a defendant understands the risks of giving up a lawyer. The defense will argue that the judge did not adequately establish an informed choice to proceed alone.

A job applicant accuses Whole Foods of posting a job without pay information, but the appeal turns on which court can hear her lawsuit. She says she applied in good faith and lost valuable time because she could not evaluate the pay. Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act requires covered employers to disclose pay information and a general description of benefits in job postings. Whole Foods moved her proposed class action from state to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. The district judge ordered remand, meaning a return to state court, because the complaint had not adequately alleged the concrete injury required by Article Three. Standing is the right to invoke a court's authority; in federal court, a statutory violation does not automatically establish the required personal harm. An informational injury is harm from missing information; the dispute is whether these allegations show concrete harm, not merely a failure to follow a disclosure rule. Stephanie Schuster, for Whole Foods, will argue that the missing disclosure and a good-faith job application establish the required injury and allow the case to stay in federal court.

Virginia tries to limit masked policing and reshape local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. One new law generally bars on-duty officers, including federal officers, from concealing their faces and requires visible identification, with tactical and undercover exceptions. Another requires existing immigration-enforcement agreements to include state conditions by September first, or become void. Those conditions address how federal agents identify themselves and where they may operate. Section two-eighty-seven gee authorizes voluntary agreements allowing trained state and local officers to perform specified immigration functions under federal supervision. The United States sued, alleging unconstitutional state control of federal operations and interference with contracts. A district judge blocked the mask requirements and protected existing cooperation agreements through preliminary injunctions: temporary orders while the lawsuit continues. Virginia appealed both. Intergovernmental immunity limits state regulation of the federal government itself; it is not blanket immunity from state law for every federal employee. You will also hear dicta: comments in an opinion unnecessary to the decision, rather than a binding holding. Tillman Breckenridge, for Virginia, will argue that the state controls its localities and that the mask law does not unlawfully interfere with federal duties.

A company's attempt to end its union contract leads to a fight about who decides whether that contract still applies. Brawn Mechanical and Local Sixteen were parties to a collective bargaining agreement, or CBA: their union contract. The company sent notice saying it would end the agreement on June thirtieth. It then used nonunion workers, and the union filed a grievance, a formal complaint under the contract. The union said an automatic-renewal clause kept the agreement in force. An arbitration board agreed that the contract remained binding during the disputed period. A federal judge confirmed its award, and the company appealed. Repudiation means rejecting obligations under a contract; whether that actually ended this agreement is disputed. Arbitrability asks whether the parties agreed to have this dispute decided through arbitration. Michael Cox, for the company, will argue that the court had to decide whether the union filed a timely grievance before deferring to the arbitrators.

A Salvadoran man with past gang ties challenges the loss of protection against torture. Milton Parada Chavez says he joined MS-thirteen while in prison in two thousand nine, then left the gang in twenty thirteen and received death threats. An immigration judge ordered his removal but granted protection from being sent to El Salvador under the Convention Against Torture, or CAT. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals took that protection away. He is now asking the Ninth Circuit to review that denial. CAT requires showing that torture is more likely than not, not simply that prison conditions are harsh. Deferral of removal prevents sending someone to the country where that standard is met; it does not grant lawful immigration status or necessarily mean release from detention. The regulations require all evidence relevant to future torture to be considered. Listen for how evidence about a country's prisons bears on this person's risk.