Apr 28 2026
9th Cir. 24-1672 3-0

DOE 1, ET AL. V. META PLATFORMS, INC.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action against Meta Platforms, Inc., holding that Section Two Hundred Thirty of the Communications Decency Act of nineteen ninety-six immunized the company from claims that its platform design and algorithms incited violence against the Rohingya people in Myanmar.

Apr 28 2026
6th Cir. 25-3451 Published

Sequoia Energy, LLC v. Mitchell

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the award of Black Lung Benefits Act benefits to a miner's surviving spouse, ruling that the employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of pneumoconiosis. The court held that negative chest x-rays do not preclude a finding of legal pneumoconiosis, leaving the employer's burden of proof unmet.

Apr 28 2026
9th Cir. 4:22-cv-00051- Published

DOE 1, ET AL. V. META PLATFORMS, INC.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Facebook's design incited violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar. The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars claims treating Meta as a publisher of third-party content, even when the platform's algorithms recommend such content.

Apr 28 2026
6th Cir. 25-3451 Published

Sequoia Energy, LLC v. Mitchell

The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review seeking to overturn an award of federal coal miners' benefits. The court held that the employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the deceased miner was disabled due to pneumoconiosis.

Apr 22 2026
1st Cir. 24-2131 Panel Decision

Perez v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

The First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that workers hired by a nonprofit to manage disaster relief were not employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The court held that the agency did not exercise sufficient control over the workers to establish liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Apr 22 2026
11th Cir. 24-11946 Published

Sorenson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Delta Air Lines against former pilots alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The court held that the pilots' abuse of sick leave provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their constructive termination and that their compensation was not reasonably certain for pension calculations.

Apr 22 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-1835 Panel Decision

Perez v. Army

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the removal of a federal employee for failure to follow instructions and conduct unbecoming a supervisor. The court held that the agency provided substantial evidence supporting the charges and that the penalty was reasonable under the Douglas factors.

Apr 21 2026
11th Cir. 1:25-cv-22896-KMW Published

Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security

The Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court's preliminary injunction against a state-built immigration detention facility, ruling that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply. The court held that the facility was constructed and managed by Florida using state funds and personnel, meaning no final federal agency action triggered NEPA review.

Apr 20 2026
4th Cir. 25-1776 Per Curiam

Park v. Shin

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court order denying attorney's fees and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate court found no reversible error in the lower court's refusal to enforce a settlement agreement provision.

Apr 20 2026
9th Cir. 3:14-cv-01092- Published

GESSELE, ET AL. V. JACK IN THE BOX INC.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a wage-and-hour judgment against Jack in the Box, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the willfulness of Workers' Benefit Fund overdeductions. The panel also ruled that the employer must pay for the full duration of shortened meal breaks under Oregon law and remanded the shoe deduction claims for a jury to determine if the deductions ultimately benefited employees.