Juliet Charron v. WPATH — 7th Cir. (Oct 26, 2026)

The Seventh Circuit hears United States against Hurd. His federal prosecution began with charges that he possessed cocaine and a machine gun, and possessed a firearm after prior felony convictions. In the argument, listen for the boundary between an arrest, a brief safety check inside a home, and a search for evidence. A motion to suppress asks a court to keep challenged evidence out of the case. A protective sweep is a limited check for people who might pose a danger, not a general hunt for evidence. Curtilage means the area immediately surrounding and associated with a home. And attenuation asks whether the link between unlawful police conduct and evidence has become weak enough for the evidence still to be used.

The Seventh Circuit hears Michael Ortega's challenge to his murder conviction. Two eyewitnesses identified him as the shooter, and he is serving a forty-six-year sentence. His mother and sister say he was at home, but his trial lawyer did not call them as alibi witnesses. Ortega contends the lawyer failed to investigate their account; the state treats that choice as reasonable trial strategy. The state courts rejected his claim, and a federal district court denied habeas corpus relief: a way to challenge imprisonment on federal legal grounds. The appeal turns on the difference between choosing not to use a defense and failing to investigate it. This is not a new trial. Federal law requires deference to a state court's reasonable decision, not just a fresh judgment about the trial lawyer's work.

The Ninth Circuit hears a Russian couple's challenge to the denial of asylum and related protection. The husband says Russian state officials detained and tortured him because of his Muslim faith. An immigration judge denied protection, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial. The couple now seeks review in federal court. An adverse credibility finding is a decision not to believe an applicant's account. Federal asylum law requires looking at all relevant circumstances, rather than mechanically counting discrepancies. That includes comparing written statements, hearing testimony and other evidence. Josh Cayetano represents the couple.

The Ninth Circuit considers a Mexican family's request for protection from removal. The dispute began when a man was repeatedly pressured to sell drugs for a local criminal. According to the account presented to the court, he refused and was attacked. He and his family sought asylum and related protection, but an immigration judge denied their applications and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial. The argument centers on nexus: the required connection between persecution and a legally protected reason, such as religion or membership in a particular social group. Here, the proposed group is men from the petitioner's hometown. The parties dispute whether the harm was connected to that group or simply to his refusal to sell drugs. The judges also question what the Board meant by an intent to overcome that group membership, and whether it demanded more than the law requires. Shannon Murphy represents the family and will ask the court to send the case back to the immigration agency.

The Fifth Circuit hears Rebecca Fraser's appeal in her lawsuit against the University of Texas Medical Branch. Her path to court began with a charge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, the federal workplace-discrimination agency. It issued a right-to-sue notice in December of twenty twenty-two. Under Title Seven, receiving that notice generally starts a ninety-day period to file a lawsuit. Fraser sued on March eighth, twenty twenty-three. The district judge dismissed her complaint as untimely and denied another amendment. That is why this argument concerns whether her claims can proceed, rather than whether discrimination occurred. The timing is complicated by electronic messages, a later portal reminder, and a separate mailed notice. Fraser's lawyer says she had moved without updating her address and did not receive her mailed copy. The judges examine both electronic notice and a legal presumption about when mailed notice arrived. They also ask whether particular arguments were raised at the proper stage and whether another amendment could fix the timing problem. One term to know is equitable tolling: a limited exception that can excuse a missed deadline. It is not an automatic extension.