Jun 2 2026
9th Cir. 3:20-cv-00158- Published

USA v. $1,106,775 in US Currency, et al

The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order striking a claimant's civil forfeiture claim based on alleged deficiencies in his responses to special interrogatories. The court held that the claimant had established sufficient standing and that the case-ending sanction was an abuse of discretion.

Jun 2 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1328 Panel Decision

Robison v. Collins

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by a veteran's survivor challenging a denial of a clear and unmistakable error claim. The court held that the survivor lacked standing to bring such a claim under established precedent.

Jun 1 2026
9th Cir. 1:22-cv-00490-DCN-DKG Unpublished

Vonovich v. Bisignano

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. The panel found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's rejection of the claimant's treating physician opinion.

May 27 2026
11th Cir. 0:23-cv-60680-PAB Per Curiam

Pakita Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a Social Security disability denial because the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate the claimant's migraine headaches against the relevant medical listing. The court held that the decision lacked sufficient analysis to determine if the migraines medically equaled epilepsy under the applicable regulations.

May 26 2026
9th Cir. 25-3837 Unpublished

Cody v. Bisignano

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income to Brian Cody. The court held that the administrative law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

May 21 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1106 Panel Decision

Batiste v. Collins

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal by a veteran seeking an earlier effective date for a special monthly pension. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to identify any legal error by the Veterans Court.