Alan Cross v. Brendan Kelly — 7th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

The Second Circuit revisits fraud convictions over a United Nations-funded radio station for women in Iraq. Steve Jabar and Deborah Bowers ran the nonprofit that received three hundred fifty thousand dollars for the project. Prosecutors say more than sixty-five thousand dollars went toward personal bills and debts. The defense says the station was built and project spending exceeded the grant, even though money moved through mixed accounts. A jury convicted them, but the trial judge set aside the fraud verdicts. In 2021, the appeals court reversed those acquittals and sent the case back for consideration of a new-trial request. The defendants now challenge their reinstated convictions and seek a new trial. Robert Singer, for Jabar, and Mahoney, for Bowers, will argue that later Supreme Court decisions undermine the earlier fraud analysis, and that the trial judge should reconsider the evidence. Tiffany Lee, for the United States, will defend the convictions as fraud aimed at obtaining money, not merely withholding information.

Seven California wholesalers challenge the promotional advantages given to Costco Business Centers in selling five-hour Energy. Both supply the drink to smaller retailers, including convenience stores. The wholesalers sued Living Essentials and its parent, Innovation Ventures, in 2018, saying Costco received better prices and advertising support. A jury rejected their price-discrimination claim, but an earlier appeal sent their separate request for equal promotional treatment back to the trial judge. Section Two D of the Robinson-Patman Act requires promotional payments to be available on proportionally equal terms to competing customers, not necessarily in identical dollar amounts. The issue now is what threatened harm the wholesalers must prove to obtain an injunction—a court order changing future conduct. Mark Poe will argue that missing out on promotion-driven sales is enough. Daniel Ravitz will argue that they have not linked their losses to unlawful promotion rather than lawful discounts or falling demand. Antitrust injury means harm of the kind antitrust law protects against, caused by the challenged conduct.

The Second Circuit considers an investor's claims over money and securities allegedly diverted from his Morgan Stanley accounts. John Mansour says stock worth millions left through entries marked deliver, without proceeds returning to him, and that later trading concealed what happened. The challenged activity dates to the late nineteen-nineties and early two-thousands; Mansour sued in 2024 after a later forensic review. Federal law generally bars basing civil racketeering, or RICO, claims on securities fraud. The judge applied that bar and found the state-law claims too late. A predicate act is an underlying offense used to support a racketeering claim. For Mansour, Bathaee will argue that theft need not involve a securities sale and that concealment excuses the delay. Mark Emery will defend both dismissal grounds for Morgan Stanley. Inquiry notice means warning signs that can trigger a duty to investigate, even before the investor knows the full alleged scheme.

The Ninth Circuit considers a murder sentence and expert mental-health evidence the jury never received. Ray Azcarate was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Jurors heard about a warning to the victim and efforts to clean up afterward, alongside evidence of drug use and delusions. His lawyer presented no supporting expert evidence at sentencing, although a psychological report described a drug-related disorder and improvement with treatment. The evaluations concerned competence to stand trial, not directly his mental state during the killing. A federal judge later ordered a new penalty hearing, finding a reasonable probability that the missing evidence would have led to a lower sentence. Nevada challenges that ruling; Azcarate also challenges evidence of earlier misconduct used at his trial. Mitigation means evidence supporting a less severe punishment, not a finding of innocence. His lawyer will defend the new hearing; Nevada will argue that the reports do not establish the required likelihood of a different sentence.

The Ninth Circuit considers Seattle's permit rules for public events. Organizers of a religious gathering were denied their preferred Pike Street location and obtained a permit elsewhere. They say opponents then violently disrupted their event. They sued, alleging the city let hostile outsiders influence its decisions. Seattle says it applied neutral safety rules. The district judge denied a preliminary injunction because the organizers had not sufficiently alleged a future encounter with the permitting system. This appeal concerns forward-looking relief, not damages for the earlier incident. Daniel Schmid will argue that the group's recurring events and allegations of continuing harm establish standing. Jessica Leiser will defend Seattle's standing argument and permit standards. A facial challenge attacks the rules themselves, rather than their application to one event. A heckler's veto means silencing a speaker because of a hostile audience's reaction, rather than addressing neutral logistical concerns.