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

Case Summary:

In Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC (Docket No. 24-2178), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a complex patent dispute following a rare split decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The factual record centers on several patents held by Wildseed Mobile relating to mobile advertising and user interface technologies, which Wildseed claimed were infringed by Google’s YouTube platform and Android advertising services. In the underlying administrative proceedings, Google successfully challenged the validity of these patents, leading the PTAB to issue a final written decision that invalidated key claims as obvious over prior art. However, the PTAB’s decision was notably non-unanimous, featuring a rare dissent from an administrative patent judge who argued that certain unique aspects of Wildseed’s "time-shifted" advertising innovations were not properly accounted for in the majority’s obviousness analysis. On appeal, the primary factual and legal dispute focuses on whether the PTAB correctly applied the standards for novelty and non-obviousness and whether the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Case Summary:

In Alignment Healthcare Inc. v. HHS (Docket No. 25-5239), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 2, 2026, Alignment Healthcare appealed a lower court ruling regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) "Star Ratings" program. The factual record focuses on CMS's use of the Tukey Outlier Rule to set quality thresholds and allegations that the agency ignored language barriers and survey reliability issues for Spanish-speaking enrollees. While the district court ordered a recalculation for one specific Arizona plan due to misprocessed member appeals, it upheld the broader statistical methodology, a finding that Alignment is now challenging at the appellate level to secure potentially billions in withheld bonus payments.

In Exafer Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation (Docket No. 24-2296), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the dispute involves networking technology used in Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform. The case reached the Federal Circuit after a district court in the Western District of Texas excluded Exafer’s damages expert for using unaccused products as a royalty base and subsequently granted summary judgment of "no damages" for Microsoft. The central factual issue on appeal is whether technical evidence of "saved CPU cycles" can independently support a reasonable royalty award in the absence of a surviving expert damages model.

Case Summary:

The case originated from a class-action lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s use of pretextual traffic stops and warrantless arrests during immigration enforcement operations in the Chicago area.

A 2022 consent decree resulting from the litigation required Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to follow specific protocols for warrantless arrests, including documenting a "likelihood of escape" and providing individualized probable cause.

In early 2025, plaintiffs alleged that ICE resumed making "collateral" warrantless arrests and conducting pretextual stops in violation of the existing settlement agreement.

The factual record includes evidence from "Operation Midway Blitz," during which plaintiffs claim ICE agents carried blank administrative warrants and filled them out only after detaining individuals to bypass the decree’s restrictions.

Following these allegations, a district court found that 22 out of 26 tested claimant cases involved arrests that violated both the consent decree and federal statutory requirements.

In October 2025, the district court extended the expiration of the consent decree to February 2, 2026, as a remedy for the government's documented non-compliance.

The current appeal focuses on a November 2025 district court order that mandated the release of several hundred detainees who were allegedly arrested in violation of the decree’s protections.

During the oral arguments on February 3, 2026, the court examined whether the government’s use of administrative warrants in the field effectively invalidated the protections negotiated in the original settlement.

Case Summary:

In the case of Ryan v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Docket No. 24-1814), the petitioner, a veteran, is appealing a denial of service-connected disability benefits originally issued by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The core factual dispute involves whether the veteran’s medical condition was directly caused or aggravated by toxic exposures encountered during their period of active military service.

The petitioner alleges that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to fulfill its statutory duty to assist by neglecting to secure specific military personnel records that documented the veteran's proximity to environmental hazards.

A central point of the factual record is a conflict between a VA-contracted medical examiner, who found no link to service, and a private medical specialist, who provided a nexus letter supporting the veteran’s claim.

The petitioner contends that the VA’s medical examination was factually inadequate because the examiner did not review the veteran’s complete service treatment file before rendering an opinion.

The case also examines whether the veteran’s service locations and dates qualify for presumptive service connection under the specific criteria established by the PACT Act.

Following the oral arguments held on February 2, 2026, the court is now reviewing whether the lower tribunal’s reliance on the VA medical opinion constituted a "clear and unmistakable error" based on the evidence provided.

Case Summary:

In Alignment Healthcare Inc. v. HHS (Docket No. 25-5239), argued before the D.C. Circuit on February 2, 2026, Alignment Healthcare challenged the methodology used by CMS to determine Medicare Advantage "Star Ratings."

The crux of the dispute centers on the Tukey Outlier Rule, which Alignment argues is an arbitrary statistical method that unfairly lowers quality scores by deleting valid data points, thereby depriving insurers of significant federal bonus payments. While the District Court previously granted a partial win regarding a specific Arizona plan's rating, it upheld the broader use of the Tukey rule.

During the appellate oral arguments, the panel focused on whether CMS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and if the agency failed to account for language barriers in patient surveys. A reversal could trigger a massive recalculation of ratings and bonus payments across the entire Medicare Advantage industry.