Case Summary:

In SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD (Docket No. 25-5367), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 6, 2026, the case involves a high-profile challenge to the Department of Defense's designation of the world's largest drone manufacturer as a "Chinese military company."

The factual record centers on the Pentagon's decision to place DJI on the "Section 1260H List," a designation that identifies entities allegedly supporting the Chinese military and blocks them from securing federal contracts. In the underlying proceedings, the district court issued a split factual finding, rejecting the DOD's claims that DJI was owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party but ultimately upholding the "military company" label based on DJI's status as a "National Enterprise Technology Center" in China and the "substantial dual-use applications" of its drone technology in modern warfare. On appeal, the primary factual dispute is whether these general industrial designations and the potential for third-party military misuse constitute sufficient evidence of a "military-civil fusion" connection under the Administrative Procedure Act, or if the DOD's listing was an arbitrary and capricious decision that ignored DJI's internal policies prohibiting combat use.

Case Summary:

In Kelvin Nolen v. Steven Ford (Docket No. 25-1370), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 5, 2026, the case pertains to a civil rights action involving allegations of police misconduct and the scope of qualified immunity.

The factual record centers on a confrontation between Kelvin Nolen and Steven Ford, an officer acting in an official capacity, during which Nolen alleges his constitutional rights were violated through the use of excessive force or an unlawful seizure. In the proceedings at the district court level, the court examined whether Officer Ford’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances or if they violated "clearly established" law, ultimately granting a ruling that prompted Nolen’s appeal. Before the Sixth Circuit, the primary factual dispute involves the specific sequence of events during the encounter and whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to overcome the officer's defense of qualified immunity and allow the case to proceed to a jury trial.

Case Summary:

In Ethan Ennes v. Presque Isle County MI (Docket No. 25-1389), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim brought by a student with physical and cognitive disabilities against a county sheriff’s deputy and the county itself.

The factual record stems from a 2021 incident in a special education classroom where the student, then eighteen years old, experienced a violent outburst that resulted in a physical confrontation with a school safety officer. During the struggle, the officer subdued and handcuffed the student, an action the plaintiff later alleged constituted excessive force and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the use of force was objectively reasonable given the student's aggressive behavior and the risk of injury to others in the classroom. On appeal, the central factual dispute is whether the degree of force used was proportional to the threat posed by a student with known cognitive impairments and whether the county can be held liable for a failure to properly train officers for such interactions