A federal judge in Miami has thrown out a proposed settlement in President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, finding the case was pursued for an improper purpose and concluding that the deal itself could not stand. In a sharp rebuke, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams also referred Trump attorney Alejandro Brito and senior Justice Department officials to bar authorities for possible professional-conduct violations.

The rejected agreement reportedly would have provided unusually broad protections for Trump and established a compensation fund approaching $1.8 billion.

A newly filed motion in the Ninth Circuit, No. 3 Motion to Dismiss in case 26-5041, puts a familiar but consequential appellate issue front and center: whether the appeal should proceed at all. Appellees Joseph Taylor, Mick Cleary, Jennifer [as listed on the docket], and others filed the motion on August 7, 2026, asking the court to terminate the appeal at the threshold rather than reach the merits.

At this stage, a motion to dismiss in the court of appeals typically targets a defect in appellate jurisdiction or a serious procedural flaw.

In a brief opinion filed August 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in docket No. 25-1162.

The Third Circuit’s July 30, 2026 decision in Opinion, No. 25-1116, is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on merits. Although the case title released on the docket is generic, the court’s ruling appears to focus on whether the appeal was properly before the court and what qualifies as a reviewable order under federal appellate practice.

At a high level, the court addressed the threshold question every appellate practitioner must confront: is there a final decision, or some other basis for immediate review, that gives the court of appeals jurisdiction? In doing so, the panel reinforced the Third Circuit’s consistent approach to finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the limited scope of exceptions such as interlocutory review, collateral-order doctrine, or Rule 54(b) certifications.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has concluded that Department of Homeland Security and ICE guidance failed to comply with an earlier court order restricting warrantless immigration arrests in the District. The ruling, from Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks an unusually direct judicial rebuke: not just disagreement over policy, but a finding that agency conduct did not match the limits the court had already imposed.

At the center of the dispute is the scope of ICE’s authority to make warrantless arrests and whether revised agency guidance meaningfully honored the court’s prior restrictions.

Meta Platforms has asked the Ninth Circuit to halt proceedings in the trial court while its appeal moves forward, a procedural step that can have outsized strategic consequences in high-stakes litigation. The filing—“Motion to Stay Underlying Proceedings”—signals that Meta believes continued district court activity would undermine the value of the appellate process or impose burdens that cannot be effectively remedied later.

At a basic level, a stay motion asks the appellate court to preserve the status quo.

A federal judge in Washington has delivered an unusually sharp rebuke in litigation tied to President Donald Trump, ruling that a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was brought for an improper purpose and appeared aimed at giving legal cover to a settlement that would grant special benefits to Trump-affiliated parties.

The ruling goes beyond dismissal or adverse merits findings.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 13, 2026 opinion in No. 25-3092 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on merits. Although the docket entry is styled simply as an “Opinion,” the court’s analysis focuses on the threshold question of whether the appeal was properly before it and what constitutes an appealable decision under federal practice.

At bottom, the court addressed whether the order being challenged satisfied the requirements for appellate review under the final-judgment rule, and whether any exception permitted immediate review.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 6, 2026 opinion in 25-2052 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on standards of review and issue preservation as on the underlying merits. Although the docket entry is captioned simply as “Opinion,” the decision appears to focus on how the court evaluates the district court’s ruling, what arguments were properly preserved, and whether reversal is warranted under the governing procedural framework.

At a high level, the court affirmed core principles of federal appellate practice: legal questions are reviewed de novo, factual findings receive greater deference, and arguments not adequately raised below—or not properly developed on appeal—face a steep uphill climb.

The Tenth Circuit’s July 7, 2026 decision in Opinion, No. 25-8071, is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure as on the merits. Although the precise factual posture is case-specific, the opinion centers on a recurring issue for federal practitioners: whether the order under review was properly appealable and, if so, what standard governs the appellate court’s review of the district court’s ruling.

The court’s analysis focuses on the boundaries of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and related doctrines governing finality.

Monsanto Company has filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss an appeal in the Eighth Circuit, sharpening what appears to be a threshold procedural dispute before the court ever reaches the merits. The filing, docketed in No. 26-2217 on July 8, 2026, is the latest step in a familiar but consequential appellate battle: whether the appellant has properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction and whether the case is in a posture that allows appellate review at all.

A reply in support of a motion to dismiss an appeal typically aims to rebut the appellant’s defenses to dismissal and to frame the issue as straightforward.

In a terse entry that simply states “Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED,” the Supreme Court has disposed of docket No. 24-699 without, at least from the information currently available, a full explanatory opinion in the case details provided. Even so, that kind of action from the Court is significant for litigants and appellate practitioners because it immediately alters the posture of the case and signals that the lower court’s judgment cannot stand.

At the most basic level, reversal means the Supreme Court concluded the decision below was wrong in some material respect.

A June 17, 2026 filing in the Fourth Circuit puts a familiar but strategically significant appellate issue front and center: whether an appeal should be dismissed before the merits briefing even begins. In No. 25, appellees Debra Campbell, the City of Asheville, and Esther Elizabeth Manheimer moved to dismiss the appeal in Case No. 26-1014, asking the court to terminate the proceeding at the outset rather than allow it to move forward on a full briefing schedule.

Although the short docket entry does not itself spell out every ground raised, motions like this typically target threshold defects that go to the appellate court’s power to hear the case at all.

A June 17 filing in the Fourth Circuit could stop appeal No. 26-1014 before merits briefing ever begins. In No. 25 MOTION, Debra Campbell, the City of Asheville, and Esther Elizabeth Manheimer ask the court to dismiss the appeal outright—a reminder that appellees do not always need to wait for full briefing to challenge whether an appeal belongs in federal appellate court at all.

Although the docket entry provides only the motion’s caption-level description, the filing appears to be a classic threshold attack on the appeal itself.

The Third Circuit’s June 16, 2026 opinion in 24-2766 is a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on standards of review and preservation as on the underlying merits. Although the docket entry identifies the decision simply as “Opinion,” the court’s reasoning appears to focus on how the district court handled the disputed issue below, what arguments were properly preserved, and whether the appellant met the burden required to obtain reversal.

At a high level, the court affirmed in part and/or otherwise left intact the lower court’s core ruling by applying a disciplined appellate framework: first identifying the applicable standard of review, then measuring the challenged ruling against that standard rather than reconsidering the case from scratch.