Jul 14 2026
9th Cir. 5:21-cv-00219-DMG-SSC Unpublished

P.H., ET AL. V. COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the Compton Unified School District denied a student a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court held that the district's summary disenrollment of the student without a valid permit revocation constituted a procedural violation requiring liability for the resulting denial of services.

Jul 14 2026
9th Cir. 5:21-cv-00219-DMG-SSC Unpublished

P. H., ET AL. V. COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a school district denied a student a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court held that the district's summary disenrollment of the student and failure to provide an individualized education program constituted a procedural violation requiring attorney's fees.

Jul 7 2026
9th Cir. 21-70670 Unanimous

Yurok Tribe v. USEPA

The Ninth Circuit remanded the Environmental Protection Agency's 2024 rule regarding the flame retardant decaBromodiphenyl Ether without vacatur, finding the agency failed to provide substantial evidence for excluding recycling, disposal, wastewater, and sewage sludge from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Jun 16 2026
10th Cir. 5:25-CV-00747-SLP Panel Decision

Byrd v. Pirrong, et al.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal lawsuit challenging an ongoing Oklahoma juvenile deprived proceeding. The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine applied because the state proceeding involved important state interests and provided an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.

May 29 2026
5th Cir. 26-50111 Per Curiam

American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of a preliminary injunction pending appeal in a challenge to a Texas law restricting public investment. A concurring opinion by Judge James C. Ho emphasized that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and aligns with Supreme Court precedent on nondiscrimination conditions for public funds.