Latest

May 31 2026

Case Explained: HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC., HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C., JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC v. INTERNET ARCHIVE DOES 1–5, INCLUSIVE Defendants.*

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-04 The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the publishers, holding that Internet Archive's scanning and lending of entire copyrighted books violates the Copyright Act because it fails the fair use test. The court reasoned that the commercial nature of the digital distribution and the lack of transformative purpose outweighed the nonprofit status, rejecting the one-to-one ratio defense. Consequently, the Digital Library must cease its unauthorized lending practices for the 127 disputed titles. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: MARGDA PIERRE-NOEL, “MS. PIERRE,” v. BRIDGES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The D.C. Circuit reversed summary judgment, holding that the IDEA's "transportation" mandate requires Bridges Public Charter School and the District to provide door-to-door assistance for a wheelchair-bound student navigating inaccessible apartment stairs. Applying the statute's requirement that related services enable a child to "benefit from" special education, the court reasoned that without physical lifting across stairs, the student cannot access school. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation of federal disability law obligations. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f) bars interlocutory appeals under the collateral-order doctrine from orders denying foreign sovereign immunity, even when the appeal targets exceptions other than § 1605A itself. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses Sudan's appeal. Consequently, Sudan must await a final judgment in the district court before challenging its immunity status. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SIERRA CLUB Consolidated with 22-1302, 22-1303

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The D.C. Circuit held that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by classifying industrial boilers built before 2020 as "new" sources, contradicting the statute's explicit temporal definitions. Consequently, the court granted petitions from industry groups challenging this classification while denying environmental groups' challenges to the agency's data selection, remanding the rule for correction of the source status determinations. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f)'s appellate bar eliminates all interlocutory appeals under the collateral-order doctrine from orders falling within its scope, even when the appeal concerns FSIA exceptions other than § 1605A itself. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks jurisdiction over Sudan's interlocutory challenge to immunity denials. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to seeking certification or pursuing the matter after final judgment. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f)'s "appellate bar" eliminates all interlocutory appeals under the collateral-order doctrine from orders falling within its scope, even when the appeal concerns FSIA exceptions other than § 1605A itself. Because the district court did not certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Sudan's interlocutory appeal and must dismiss it. Consequently, Sudan cannot obtain immediate review of its immunity denial and must await final judgment before appealing. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f)'s appellate bar precludes interlocutory appeals under the collateral-order doctrine from orders denying foreign sovereign immunity, even when the appeal concerns FSIA exceptions other than § 1605A itself. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss Sudan's interlocutory appeal. Consequently, the defendant must await a final judgment before seeking appellate review of its immunity claims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f) bars interlocutory appeals from foreign states under the collateral-order doctrine when the underlying litigation involves claims under the state-sponsored terrorism exception, even if the appeal targets immunity denials based on other FSIA provisions. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss Sudan's appeal. Consequently, the denial of sovereign immunity remains in effect pending final judgment in the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f) bars interlocutory appeals from foreign states under the collateral-order doctrine when the underlying litigation involves claims under the state-sponsored terrorism exception, even if the appeal challenges immunity denials based on other FSIA provisions. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss Sudan's appeal. Consequently, the foreign state must await a final judgment before seeking appellate review of its immunity defenses. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →

May 31 2026

Case Explained: In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Filed: 2024-09-03 The Second Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(f)'s appellate bar precludes interlocutory appeals under the collateral-order doctrine from orders denying foreign sovereign immunity, even when the appeal targets exceptions other than § 1605A itself. Because the district court failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court lacks jurisdiction over Sudan's interlocutory challenge and must dismiss the appeal. Consequently, Sudan must await a final judgment on the merits before seeking appellate review of its immunity claims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Read →