Appellate Court Decisions: Key Rulings and Developments on August 12, 2025

I. Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive overview of significant appellate court decisions issued across federal and selected state jurisdictions on August 12, 2025.

The day saw a robust slate of rulings, impacting diverse legal areas from immigration and healthcare to employment law, intellectual property, and civil rights.

Key highlights include federal circuit courts addressing complex constitutional challenges to state laws, refining procedural and jurisdictional standards, and grappling with the application of existing statutes to emerging technologies.

State appellate courts also contributed a high volume of decisions, often reinforcing procedural rigor and clarifying specific areas of state law.

A notable trend is the continued ripple effect of recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, influencing lower courts’ interpretations of administrative deference and constitutional rights.

Conversely, a significant circuit split emerged regarding employer liability for non-employee harassment, signaling an area ripe for potential Supreme Court intervention.

The collective impact of these decisions underscores the dynamic nature of appellate law and its critical role in shaping legal and societal landscapes.

II. Federal Circuit Court Decisions

The United States Courts of Appeals serve as the intermediate appellate courts within the federal judiciary.

These thirteen circuits play a crucial role in shaping federal law by reviewing decisions from lower district courts and federal administrative agencies, ensuring consistent application of federal statutes and constitutional principles across the nation.¹

District of Columbia Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is often considered the second most powerful court in the United States, given its unique jurisdiction over cases involving federal agencies and the U.S. government.

On August 12, 2025, the d+.C.

Circuit issued several notable opinions.

A d+.C.

Circuit panel denied an emergency request to halt the implementation of a universal national registry for noncitizens in the United States, meaning the “Alien Registration Requirement” will remain in effect.³

This rule mandates that all migrants aged 14 or older must register their fingerprints and carry an ID card, with potential criminal prosecution for non-compliance.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates this impacts millions who entered the country without documentation.

The panel, consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Bradley Garcia, issued a per curiam order, concluding that the immigrant rights groups seeking the stay failed to meet the stringent requirements for such emergency relief.

This decision affirmed U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden’s April ruling, which found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the rule would “erode their core missions” and only presented speculative harms.

The court’s decision not to intervene immediately in the policy’s implementation allows the “Alien Registration Requirement” to continue its widespread impact, potentially increasing pressure on immigrant communities and raising concerns about racial profiling, as warned by advocacy groups.

While the underlying legal challenge will proceed, the denial of the emergency stay highlights the high bar for obtaining immediate judicial relief against executive immigration policies.

In another significant ruling, the d+.C.

Circuit held in State of Georgia v.

DOJ (23-5083) that the government’s attorney work product, when shared with aligned non-government parties under a common-interest agreement, qualifies as “intra-agency” material and is protected from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 5.⁴

This decision reversed a lower court’s ruling.

The case originated from Georgia’s FOIA request for communications between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and non-governmental entities challenging Georgia’s Election Integrity Act.

The court’s determination strengthens the government’s ability to protect its litigation strategy and privileged communications when collaborating with outside parties who share a common legal interest.

This prevents adversaries from using FOIA requests to gain access to materials that would otherwise be protected by attorney work-product privilege in standard discovery, thereby preserving the integrity of the adversarial legal system.

⁴

Additional opinions released by the d+.C.

Circuit on this date include USA v.

Demetrius Green (23-3100).⁴

USA v.

Ramiro Lozano (23-7139), a False Claims Act case alleging improper reimbursements to skilled nursing facilities, the d+.C.

Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The court found that the relator, Terri R.

Winnon, failed to meet the “original source” requirement and that her allegations were too thinly pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).⁴

Lastly, in

Nicole Pileggi v.

Washington Newspaper Publishing Company, LLC (24-7022), the d+.C.

Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) claim.

The court concluded that Ms. Pileggi was not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act because her newsletter subscription did not establish the requisite connection to the videos she watched on the website, illustrating the challenges of applying older privacy statutes to modern digital content.

⁴

First Circuit

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued a significant decision impacting local governance and tourism.

In Ass’n to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihoods v.

Town of Bar Harbor, the First Circuit largely sided with the town in a long-running lawsuit concerning its daily cap on cruise ship passengers.⁷

The dispute centered on a town ordinance, passed via a local referendum in 2022, which established a daily limit of 1,000 cruise ship passengers disembarking in Bar Harbor.

While the court supported the town’s general authority, it remanded the case to the federal district court for further arguments specifically on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The lower court is now tasked with determining the extent to which the ordinance restricts tourism, its impact on other cruise ship ports in Maine, and whether the town’s objectives could be achieved through less restrictive means.

This decision highlights the ongoing tension between local communities’ desire for self-regulation and the constitutional limits imposed by federal economic principles.

The remand for a more detailed Commerce Clause analysis indicates the court’s careful scrutiny of potential burdens on interstate commerce, even from well-intentioned local regulations.

⁷

Second Circuit

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New York City, has appellate jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court addressed critical issues in antitrust law.

In Mosaic Health, Inc. v.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (24-598), the Second Circuit revived antitrust claims brought by two safety-net healthcare providers against major drug manufacturers, including Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca.⁸

The plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to limit participation in the federal Section 340B drug discount program, which is designed to provide discounted medications to clinics serving low-income populations, leading to inflated insulin and weight-loss drug costs.

The appeals court rejected the drugmakers’ arguments and held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged “parallel conduct” restricting drug provision to third-party pharmacies via the 340B program.

This ruling overturns a lower court’s dismissal of the suit, marking a significant development in healthcare antitrust litigation.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing practices that could impede access to affordable healthcare, particularly for vulnerable populations, and in ensuring fair competition within essential healthcare markets.

⁸

Another case, Variscite NY Four, LLC v.

New York State Cannabis Control Board (24-384), was listed as a decision on August 12, 2025.⁹

This case involves a challenge to New York’s adult-use cannabis licensing program, specifically alleging dormant Commerce Clause violations due to preferences for New York residents.

While the case was active on this date, the available information does not provide the summary or details of the Second Circuit’s specific ruling.

Previous district court orders had denied temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in this matter.¹⁰

The outcome of this appeal holds significant implications for the structure of New York’s cannabis market and could influence similar residency preference policies in other states.

Third Circuit

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, covers Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued a ruling with far-reaching implications for administrative law.

In Sun Valley Orchards, LLC v.

U.S. Department of Labor, the Third Circuit ruled that the Department of Labor (DOL) had unconstitutionally assessed over $500,000 in penalties and back wages against a New Jersey farm.¹²

These penalties were related to violations concerning the farm’s employment of nonimmigrant seasonal farm workers under the H-2A visa program.

This decision is viewed as a significant extension of the U.S. Supreme Court’s

SEC v.

Jarkesy ruling, which narrowed the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The Third Circuit held that the DOL’s enforcement actions, particularly those seeking penalties and back pay for H-2A job order provisions, involved “private rights” that require adjudication in Article III federal courts, rather than administrative tribunals.

This ruling carries broad implications for federal administrative agencies, suggesting that many agency adjudications of employment-related claims, such as wage-and-hour, whistleblower, and unfair labor practices violations, may be deemed unconstitutional.

This could lead to a substantial shift of cases from administrative law judges to federal courts, fundamentally altering the landscape of federal regulatory enforcement and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

¹²

Fourth Circuit

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia, has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court released several published and unpublished opinions.¹³

In American Federation of Teachers v.

Scott Bessent (25-1282.P), the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a preliminary injunction that had paused the activities of “DOGE Teams” within federal agencies.¹⁴

Plaintiffs had alleged that granting these teams broad IT access to databases violated the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, citing what it termed a “multiplicative problem.” This refers to the challenge of proving likelihood of success when a plaintiff must prevail on multiple independent, dispositive issues (such as standing, final agency action, APA remedy, and a Privacy Act violation).

The court also noted a Supreme Court stay in a related case involving the Social Security Administration.

This decision reinforces the high legal standard for obtaining preliminary injunctions, particularly when they seek to halt government operations.

The “multiplicative problem” reasoning could make it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to secure early injunctive relief in complex cases that require proving multiple legal elements.

¹⁴

The Fourth Circuit also issued a ruling in Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v.

Jeremiah Winters (24-1728.P), affirming in part and vacating in part a preliminary injunction.¹³

The case involved a wealth management firm suing former employees who left to establish a new firm, alleging trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.

The court affirmed the injunction against the former employees, finding that their individual employment agreements, which explicitly stated they controlled over the industry’s “Protocol for Broker Recruiting,” were enforceable.

However, the court vacated the injunction against the new firm itself, as it was not a party to those specific agreements.

The opinion included a detailed analysis of the term “raiding” under the Broker Protocol, concluding that the defendants’ conduct did not meet that definition.

This ruling provides important clarity on the interplay between individual employment contracts and industry-wide protocols in the financial services sector, emphasizing the enforceability of specific contractual non-solicitation clauses while limiting the reach of injunctions to directly bound parties.

¹³

In Maurice Wells, Jr. v.

Terry Johnson (24-1829.P), the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against a sheriff.¹³

Wells had claimed his First Amendment rights were violated during a protest.

The court found that the declaratory judgment he sought would not provide constitutionally adequate redress for any cognizable injuries, whether past or future, as it would not bind the state prosecution or sufficiently address speculative future arrests.

The decision emphasizes the strict Article III standing requirements for federal courts, particularly for declaratory judgments, which must offer tangible benefits to the plaintiff.

The remand to state court, rather than dismissal, highlights the procedural intricacies of cases removed to federal court when federal jurisdiction is subsequently found lacking.

¹³

Finally, in US v.

Jesse Perez (24-4039.P), the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a conviction, addressing the fundamental question of who determines the jurisdictional element in a criminal offense—specifically, whether a crime’s location falls within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.¹³

The court held that while the factual conduct of the offense is for the factfinder (jury or court in a bench trial) to determine, the location’s jurisdictional status is a legal question for the court.

It classified the underlying facts for this determination as “legislative facts,” which can be judicially noticed by the court.

However, the court found the district court’s prior analysis incomplete and remanded the case for a proper application of the legal test for federal territorial jurisdiction.

This ruling provides important guidance on the division of labor between judge and jury regarding jurisdictional elements in federal criminal cases, potentially streamlining the process by allowing judges to take judicial notice of established truths about federal property.

¹³

Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued rulings on class action certification, criminal procedure, and sentencing.

In B.

B., et al.

Michael Harrington, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health (24-30244), the Fifth Circuit vacated a class certification order in a lawsuit alleging Louisiana failed to provide statutorily required mental health services to Medicaid-eligible children.¹⁸

The court found that the district court’s definition of “intensive behavioral services” was too vague and imprecise to support an ascertainable class.

The case was remanded for the district court to narrow its definition, with the court emphasizing that a class must be “sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member.” This decision highlights the stringent requirements for class certification, particularly the “ascertainability” standard, which can be a significant procedural hurdle in complex litigation involving public healthcare services.

¹⁸

The Fifth Circuit also heard an appeal in the criminal case of Ronald Donell Brown (24-20095).¹⁹

Brown, the leader of a drug organization involved in trafficking cocaine and marijuana, and a murder-for-hire plot, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

He alleged that federal agents, acting through a confidential informant, violated his attorney-client privilege and Sixth Amendment rights by intruding on privileged communications.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, finding that Brown failed to show the communications were protected by privilege or to establish the requisite prejudice for his Sixth Amendment claim.

However, the court vacated the ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of Brown’s indictment, as well as the sentences for Counts One and Two, and remanded the case for further determination.

This ruling offers a nuanced outcome in a high-stakes criminal appeal, upholding the admissibility of evidence against a constitutional challenge while requiring further review of other aspects of the case.

¹⁹

Additionally, in Javier Guerra v.

United States of America (24-10906), the Fifth Circuit denied Guerra’s in forma pauperis (IFP) motion and dismissed his appeal as frivolous.²¹

Guerra, a federal prisoner, sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

The court found that Guerra’s arguments were mistaken, as he was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 due to factors such as not being assessed status points, having only one criminal history point, possessing a firearm in connection with the offense, and receiving an aggravating role adjustment.

This decision illustrates the strict criteria for post-conviction sentence modifications and reinforces that appellate courts will dismiss appeals that lack a nonfrivolous legal basis.

²¹

Sixth Circuit

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued two significant rulings, one impacting professional regulation and another creating a notable circuit split in employment law.

In McLemore v.

Gumuccio, the Sixth Circuit unanimously upheld Tennessee’s licensing requirements for online auctioneers against a First Amendment challenge.²²

The court ruled that the state’s regulations target professional conduct, not protected speech, and serve a legitimate public interest in preventing fraud.

The panel distinguished auctioneering from activities like tour guiding, emphasizing that auctioneers facilitate binding sales transactions as fiduciaries, handling clients’ money and property.

The court relied on its 2014 precedent,

Liberty Coins, LLC v.

Goodman, which upheld similar licensing schemes designed to curb fraud.

This ruling provides important clarity on the scope of First Amendment protection for professional activities, allowing states greater latitude to regulate professions to protect consumers, even when those professions involve significant communicative elements.

²²

A significant circuit split emerged from the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Bivens v.

Zep, Inc., concerning employer liability for harassment by a non-employee, such as a client.²³

The court held that an employer is only liable for such harassment if the company

intended the harassment to occur.

This decision explicitly breaks from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, which applies a negligence standard, and the stance of most other federal circuits (including the 1st, 2nd, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits).

Only the Seventh Circuit shares the Sixth Circuit’s view.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v.

Raimondo decision, which allows courts greater latitude to diverge from agency interpretations, to justify its departure from the EEOC’s negligence standard.

This divergence creates legal uncertainty for national employers operating across different circuits, as they may face varying standards of liability for hostile work environments created by third parties.

This issue is a prime candidate for Supreme Court review to resolve the conflicting interpretations and establish a uniform standard under Title VII.

²³

Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, Illinois, has appellate jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court received a key filing in a complex pension dispute.

In Consumers Concrete Corp. v.

Central States, SE and SW Areas Pension Fund (25-1765, 25-1766), the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund filed its brief with the Seventh Circuit on August 12, 2025.²⁴

The Fund is arguing that the court should overturn an Illinois federal judge’s order to recalculate a concrete company’s roughly $23 million pension debt.

The Fund contends its original finding was correct and that a credit for previously paid-off debt should apply during the second step of a four-step calculation process, rather than at the end, citing conflicts with decisions from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits.

This filing highlights complex issues in multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability and underscores an existing or emerging inter-circuit split on the interpretation of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act.

Such disagreement among federal appellate courts often signals an issue that may eventually require Supreme Court resolution to ensure uniformity in federal law.

²⁴

Eighth Circuit

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, Missouri, covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued a highly impactful ruling on a contentious social issue.

In an 8-2 decision, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Arkansas law prohibiting doctors from providing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery, to transgender minors.²⁷

This decision overturns a lower court ruling that had declared the law unconstitutional and had previously blocked it from taking effect in 2021.

The majority opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling on Tennessee’s similar ban.

Going further than the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit also decided an unresolved legal issue, concluding that such bans do not violate parents’ due process rights to provide appropriate medical care for their children, finding no historical support for such a right in the nation’s history and tradition.

Dissenting judges, including U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, criticized the “startling lack of evidence” connecting the ban to its purported goal of protecting children.

This is a highly impactful decision in the ongoing national debate over transgender rights and healthcare.

The Eighth Circuit’s broad ruling, particularly on parental rights, sets a strong precedent within its jurisdiction and could influence other states with similar bans.

It intensifies the legal battle, making it highly likely that this issue will return to the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.

²⁷

Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, California, is the largest federal appellate court, covering nine states and two territories in the Western United States.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court addressed a range of complex issues, from social media litigation to constitutional due process.

On August 12, 2025, California’s attorney general’s office presented arguments before a Ninth Circuit panel, seeking to overturn a magistrate judge’s discovery order in a sprawling lawsuit accusing social media companies (including Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat) of designing addictive products for children.²⁹

The contested order required the production of documents from over 250 state agencies, including governor’s offices.

Attorneys general from 33 states objected, arguing that the order violated principles of federalism and that attorneys general, as lawyers, do not have control over all state documents in the same manner as a private firm.

This case highlights the immense discovery challenges inherent in multi-district litigation against major tech companies, particularly when state governments are involved.

The arguments touch upon fundamental principles of federalism and the scope of attorney-client privilege in the context of state agencies, and the outcome of this “minor skirmish” over discovery could significantly impact the progress and feasibility of this nationwide social media addiction lawsuit.

²⁹

In Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v.

Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (23-16093), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision that had struck nine of eleven alleged trade secrets from a DNA-sequencing company’s misappropriation claim.³⁰

The appeals court held that the “fact question of ‘reasonable particularity'” for identifying trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) should be resolved on summary judgment or at trial, not dismissed as a discovery sanction at an early stage.

The district court had applied a California state rule (California Uniform Trade Secret Act, or CUTSA) requiring “reasonable particularity” at the outset of discovery, which the Ninth Circuit found did not control a federal DTSA claim.

This ruling is a crucial procedural win for plaintiffs in federal trade secret cases, especially in high-tech sectors where trade secrets can be complex and difficult to define early in litigation.

It prevents defendants from using early particularity challenges to functionally dismiss claims, ensuring that the merits of trade secret allegations are litigated at a more appropriate stage.

³⁰

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Monsanto in Engilis, et al.

Monsanto Company (23-4201), a case within the long-running Roundup herbicide multidistrict litigation.³⁴

The court upheld the exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness opinion on specific causation, finding it did not meet Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requirements for being based on sufficient facts or data.

The expert, Dr. Andrew Schneider, conducted a differential etiology but failed to reliably rule out obesity as a potential cause of the plaintiff’s cancer or provide a reasoned basis for dismissing it as a risk factor.

With no admissible evidence of specific causation, summary judgment for Monsanto was deemed appropriate.

This decision underscores the critical role of admissible expert testimony in toxic tort cases, particularly the rigorous standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and demonstrates that courts continue to act as gatekeepers for scientific evidence in high-stakes product liability litigation.

³⁴

In Bieganski v.

Shinn, et al. (23-1982), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a habeas petition.³⁶

The court held that Arizona’s child molestation statutory scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of disproving sexual motivation—an essential element of the crime—to the defendant, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Arizona statute allowed an affirmative defense if the defendant proved they were “not motivated by a sexual interest.” The court found that this shifted the burden of proof for a critical element distinguishing criminal from innocent conduct, which constituted an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.

This is a significant ruling affirming fundamental due process protections in criminal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

³⁶

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of J.B.

Hunt Transport, Inc., in Williams, et al.

J.B.

Hunt Transport, Inc. (24-933), a wage and hour putative class action brought by California-based truck drivers.³⁸

The court held that J.B.

Hunt’s compensation scheme, which combined hourly wages with bonuses, qualified for California Labor Code § 226.2(a)(7)’s “safe harbor” provision, as it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked.

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-the-clock work or wage statement violations.

This decision provides important guidance for employers, particularly in the transportation and logistics sectors, on how to structure compensation plans to comply with California’s stringent labor laws, offering a pathway for employers to use hybrid pay models without incurring liability for nonproductive time.

³⁸

In Wyatt B., et al.

Kotek, et al. (24-4689), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s interpretation of a class action settlement agreement.⁴⁰

The court held that children in the legal custody of the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) but physically placed with their parents (e.g., “Not-Removed Children” or on “Trial Home Visit”) are entitled to substantive due process protections.

The district court had previously excluded these children from the settlement, believing they lacked such rights.

The Ninth Circuit clarified that once the state assumes legal custody, it has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable safety and minimally adequate care, regardless of physical placement.

This is a critical ruling for child welfare and special education, expanding the scope of state responsibility for children in its legal custody and ensuring that a vulnerable population of children are afforded constitutional protections regarding their safety and care.

⁴⁰

Finally, in TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, Inc., ET AL V.

MCKESSON CORPORATION, ET AL. (22-15710), the Ninth Circuit issued an order remanding this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v.

McKesson Corp..⁴³

The underlying case involved a class action lawsuit alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations for unsolicited fax advertisements.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which this remand follows, concerned whether the Hobbs Act precludes judicial review of an agency’s statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings.

This is a direct example of a lower court implementing a Supreme Court directive, ensuring that the

McKesson case will proceed under this clarified legal framework, potentially affecting the outcome of the long-running TCPA litigation.

⁴³

Tenth Circuit

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, Colorado, has jurisdiction over Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court delivered rulings on qualified immunity and environmental regulation.⁴⁵

In United States v.

Hardy (24-8006), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to two jail officials.⁴⁵

The court found that the plaintiff, an inmate confined to a wheelchair, plausibly alleged that the officials violated his clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference.

The inmate claimed he fell from his wheelchair and was left in severe pain for nearly an hour despite activating an emergency button multiple times, leading to further injury.

The court upheld the denial of immunity, emphasizing the “clearly established” nature of the right to adequate medical care for incarcerated individuals.

This decision reinforces the limitations on qualified immunity for government officials when their actions or inactions clearly violate established constitutional rights, particularly concerning the medical care and safety of individuals in custody.

⁴⁵

The Tenth Circuit also issued a decision in Center for Biological Diversity v.

EPA, et al. (23-9503), denying a petition for review and thereby upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of Colorado’s plan to reduce ozone pollution under the Clean Air Act.⁴⁸

Petitioners had challenged the EPA’s approval on several grounds, including that the plan was approved after the statutory deadline, included state-only emissions reductions, and violated anti-backsliding provisions.

The court found that the EPA did not act unlawfully, distinguishing between attainment and reasonable-further-progress demonstrations.

This ruling demonstrates judicial deference to the EPA’s technical expertise and its interpretation of complex environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act.

It signifies a victory for regulatory flexibility in achieving environmental goals, even when states miss deadlines, as long as the overall plan complies with statutory requirements.

⁴⁸

Other decisions released by the Tenth Circuit on this date include United States v.

Papke (24-5094), a published opinion.⁴⁵

Additionally, several unpublished orders and judgments were issued, such as

United States v.

Ramirez-Lopez (25-3109), Sanchez-Mayorga, et al.

Bondi (24-9559), United States v.

Khan (24-2119), and West-Helmle v.

Denver District Attorney’s Office, et al. (24-1340).⁴⁵

Eleventh Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, Georgia, covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued several significant rulings impacting consumer protection, criminal law, and constitutional interpretation.⁵¹

In Nelson v.

Experian Information Solutions Inc. (24-10147), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that plaintiffs cannot “manufacture” Article III standing by spending time and money to rectify an otherwise harmless statutory violation.⁵³

This decision is particularly significant for Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases.

The court, relying on Supreme Court precedent set in

Spokeo and Ramirez, held that an injury-in-fact must be “concrete” and not merely a “bare procedural violation.” The plaintiff’s efforts to correct errors in a credit report that was never published to third parties were deemed “self-inflicted harm” insufficient to establish standing.

This ruling is a major development for consumer protection litigation, especially in the FCRA context, as it limits federal court access for plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate a “real-world harm” beyond the mere existence of a statutory violation.

This could lead to more dismissals of FCRA cases at early stages and may prompt plaintiffs to pursue such claims in state courts if possible.

⁵³

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Daniel Quintero’s conviction in USA v.

Daniel Quintero (22-12846), holding that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), specifically its definition of a “vessel without nationality,” is facially constitutional.⁵²

Quintero challenged his conviction for drug conspiracy on the high seas, arguing that the MDLEA’s definition was unconstitutional as it included vessels not stateless under international law.

The court reiterated that Congress’s authority under the Felonies Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10) is not limited by international law when defining “high seas” or “stateless vessel.” This ruling reinforces the broad reach of U.S. federal criminal jurisdiction over drug trafficking on the high seas, firmly establishing that, within the Eleventh Circuit, Congress’s power to define offenses on the high seas is not constrained by customary international law.

⁵²

In USA v.

Joshua Colston (24-12878), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Colston’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).⁵²

Colston argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him based on his prior non-violent felony convictions, raising a Second Amendment challenge.

The court, however, reaffirmed that “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful” and upheld the statute as constitutional, stating it was bound by its prior ruling in

United States v.

Dubois.

This decision reaffirms the Eleventh Circuit’s consistent position that federal prohibitions on firearm possession by felons are constitutional, even after recent Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence, indicating that the established framework for disarming felons remains intact within this circuit.

⁵²

Other decisions from the Eleventh Circuit on this date include Bozorgmehr Pouyeh v.

Public Health Trust of Jackson Health System, et al. (17-12749, 19-13903, 23-13504, 24-10988) ⁵¹,

Jude Lahens v.

Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al. (22-13228) ⁵¹, and

Robert DiPietro v.

Laretha Lockhart (22-13387).⁵¹

USA v.

Timothy Buchanan (22-14195), the court affirmed his convictions on multiple counts related to stolen checks and identification cards, but set aside his sentence due to errors in applying a “sophisticated means” enhancement and calculating restitution.⁵¹

The court also affirmed the conviction in

USA v.

Jonathan Kuykendall (24-13076) for attempting to entice a minor, finding no error in the jury instruction that cell phones and the Internet are facilities of interstate commerce.⁵¹

Lastly,

Silas Martin v.

Warden, Kilby Correctional Facility (24-13852) was also decided.⁵¹

Federal Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, d+.C., has nationwide jurisdiction over specific subject matters, including patent law, international trade, and claims against the U.S. government.¹

On August 12, 2025, the court issued a precedential opinion in a takings case.

In Dinh v.

United States, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting a motion to dismiss a takings case that had been appealed from the Court of Federal Claims.⁶³

The court ruled that there was no “taking” under the Fifth Amendment because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require the transfer of funds to repay them to the Puerto Rican government.

This decision clarifies the high bar for proving a “taking,” particularly when it involves complex financial instruments and congressional action.

It emphasizes that a compensable taking requires a direct government action that explicitly devalues property or mandates its transfer, rather than indirect economic effects.

This ruling is significant for property rights and government finance, especially in the context of sovereign debt and legislative actions, as it limits the scope of “takings” claims against the federal government.

⁶³

While news reports on this date mentioned Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares applauding a decision from a regional office of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to grant full G.I.

Bill benefits to Lieutenant Colonel (R.T.) Paul Yoon, the available information does not indicate a new Federal Circuit decision on this specific matter on August 12, 2025.⁶⁴

The Federal Circuit had previously received amicus briefs in support of LTC Yoon in March and June 2025, suggesting that the VA’s decision was an outcome influenced by prior legal advocacy rather than a new ruling from the Federal Circuit on this specific date.

⁶⁴

III. State Appellate Court Decisions (Selected Jurisdictions)

State appellate courts serve as crucial arbiters of state law, reviewing decisions from trial courts within their respective states and interpreting state statutes and constitutions.

Their rulings are fundamental to the development of state-specific jurisprudence and the resolution of countless legal disputes.

California Courts of Appeal

California’s appellate system includes six Courts of Appeal districts, which serve as intermediate appellate courts, reviewing decisions from the state’s 58 trial courts (one in each county).⁶⁵

The California Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, with discretion to review decisions from the Courts of Appeal.⁶⁵

On August 12, 2025, the California Courts of Appeal issued numerous opinions.

While P.

Hayde (G063442) was listed as a decision on this date, the available information does not provide a summary or details of the ruling.⁵¹

The appellate courts also released a high volume of unpublished opinions, including cases such as

Washeleski v.

C.W. (H052531), Grant v.

Bank of America (G063830M), P.

Mendiola (E082767), In re Dylan N. (B340324), P.

Gutierrez (A169777), Tragni v.

Tragni (A169130), In re J.S. (C102615), P.

Donaldson (E083610), Watson v.

The Regents of the University of California (B337157), P.

Locke (B336724), G.G.

Allan (B336055), P.

Rodriguez (B334994), P.

Loquellano (B330399A), P.

Knight (C101528), P.

Swann (C101194), and In re N.C. (H052794).⁶⁹

The sheer volume of these decisions, particularly unpublished ones, underscores the continuous and high-volume nature of appellate review in a large state like California.

While unpublished opinions do not set binding precedent, they represent the resolution of numerous individual disputes, reflecting the judiciary’s ongoing work in processing a vast caseload.

Florida District Courts of Appeal

Florida’s appellate court system is meticulously structured, with six District Courts of Appeal serving as intermediate appellate courts that review decisions from circuit and county courts.⁷⁰

The Florida Supreme Court stands at the apex of the state’s judicial system.⁷⁰

On August 12, 2025, Teresa Gaffney, a Tampa resident, filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.⁷²

This petition challenges a June 25, 2025, order issued by Circuit Judge James Barton, which directed the sale of Ms. Gaffney’s constitutionally protected homestead property, imposed sanctions exceeding $100,000, and barred her and her attorneys from submitting further filings.

Ms. Gaffney argues that Judge Barton’s order was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of Florida’s homestead protections and due process laws.

Her counsel contends that the property was never an asset of her father’s estate due to an executed and irrevocable life estate deed, and therefore, the court lacks authority to sell her home without a lawful determination of homestead.

This petition, currently pending, highlights the robust constitutional protections for homestead property in Florida and the legal battles that can arise when these protections are challenged.

The request for extraordinary writs indicates serious allegations of judicial overreach and procedural impropriety, drawing attention to the appellate courts’ role in supervising lower court adherence to fundamental legal principles and property rights.

⁷²

The Florida First District Court of Appeal also issued numerous per curiam affirmed decisions on August 12, 2025.⁷³

These include cases such as

Daniels v.

State of Florida (1D2022-3809, 1D2023-2127) ⁷³,

O’Connor v.

State of Florida (1D2023-3000) ⁷³,

Lowe v.

State of Florida (1D2023-3338) ⁷³,

Edwards v.

State of Florida (1D2024-0272) ⁷³,

Jackson v.

State of Florida (1D2024-0561) ⁷³,

Saffore v.

Frazier Freight, LLC, PLS Logistics, et al. (1D2024-1132) ⁷³,

Brannen v.

State of Florida (1D2024-1417) ⁷³,

Engle v.

State of Florida (1D2024-1467) ⁷³,

Stutler v.

State of Florida (1D2024-1846) ⁷³,

Staples v.

State of Florida (1D2024-1973) ⁷³,

Robinson v.

Lakeland Regional Health Systems Inc, et al. (1D2024-2087) ⁷³, and

Daniels v.

Dixon (1D2024-2208).⁷³

The high number of per curiam affirmed decisions indicates that many appeals presented no novel legal questions or clear errors, allowing for efficient disposition of cases where the lower court’s reasoning was sound.

This reflects the routine, yet crucial, function of appellate courts in reviewing trial court proceedings.

New Jersey Appellate Division

The New Jersey Appellate Division serves as the intermediate appellate court in the state, reviewing decisions from the trial courts.

It plays a vital role in interpreting state statutes and ensuring consistent application of law across New Jersey.⁸⁴

On August 12, 2025, a New Jersey state appeals court issued a ruling that clarified its “ghost gun” law in State of New Jersey v.

Malihki X.

Oliver (A-3118-23).⁸⁵

In a matter of first impression, the court found that a man who bought ghost gun kits in Pennsylvania, where they are legal, could still be charged when he brought the non-serialized, unlicensed weapons back to his New Jersey home.

The court affirmed his three-year sentence.

The three-judge panel disagreed with Oliver’s argument that the purchase had to occur in New Jersey to violate the state’s prohibition.

The court concluded that the statute’s elements—the purchase of ghost gun parts, the intent to manufacture or assemble a firearm, and the lack of registration or license—do not require the purchase itself to take place within New Jersey.

This is a significant ruling for firearms regulation, particularly concerning “ghost guns,” which pose increasing challenges for law enforcement due to their unregulated nature.

The decision clarifies that New Jersey’s law has extraterritorial reach based on the intent to manufacture or assemble within the state, even if parts are legally acquired elsewhere.

This could set a precedent for other states seeking to regulate these weapons and highlights the legal complexities arising from differing state gun laws.

⁸⁵

Texas Courts of Appeals (First and Fourteenth Districts)

Texas operates a unique bifurcated appellate system, with the Texas Supreme Court serving as the court of last resort for civil and juvenile matters, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal matters.⁸⁷

Below these highest courts are 14 geographically-based Courts of Appeals, which handle the vast majority of intermediate appeals.⁸⁷

On August 12, 2025, the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals issued a high volume of decisions covering a wide array of legal issues.

First Court of Appeals Decisions:

The First Court of Appeals, based in Houston, issued several rulings.89 In

William Osterhout v.

Eric Osterhout and Jeff Osterhout (01-23-00600-CV), the court affirmed the trial court’s decision not to award attorney’s fees in a probate case.⁹⁰

In re NetJets Sales, Inc., NetJets Aviation, Inc., NetJets Services, Inc., and Curt Krippner (01-24-00325-CV), the court conditionally granted a mandamus petition, directing the trial court to dismiss the case based on a valid forum-selection clause that mandated litigation in Ohio.⁹¹

James Michael Sotelo v.

The State of Texas saw two related appeals (01-24-00562-CR, 01-24-00567-CR), where the court affirmed murder and deadly conduct convictions but modified the judgment to remove duplicate court costs.⁹²

Alma Brown v.

Sherry Dorinda Faulkner (01-25-00240-CV) was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant’s failure to pay for the clerk’s record.⁹⁴

The court also denied two mandamus petitions:

In re Darrell J.

Harper (01-25-00599-CV), filed by a vexatious litigant seeking to lift sanctions and reinstate lawsuits ⁹⁵, and

In re Ronald Wayne Schofield (01-25-00605-CR), challenging the trial court’s failure to rule on a motion to vacate sentence.⁹⁶

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Decisions:

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, also based in Houston, likewise released numerous decisions.97 In

Jeremy Ridings (14-22-00940-CV), the court modified the judgment by deleting an award of attorney’s fees but affirmed the monetary judgment for overpaid child support under an equitable restitution theory.⁹⁸

Jorge Simon v.

SWIII Texas Fund, LLC, and Sheldon Woods III (14-23-00770-CV) saw the court affirm a dismissal for want of prosecution.⁹⁷

Jose L.

Garcia v.

Maria E.

Garcia (14-23-00892-CV), the court reversed in part, rendering judgment quieting title in Jose’s name after finding Maria failed to establish her adverse possession claim.⁹⁷

Two appeals in

Terry James Dunn v.

The State of Texas (14-24-00120-CR, 14-24-00121-CR) resulted in the affirmation of aggravated kidnapping and robbery convictions, based on counsel’s Anders briefs indicating frivolous appeals.⁹⁹

The court affirmed the trial court’s orders denying relief in

Michael Jimmy Rodrigues v.

Rosa Luna Alvara (14-24-00625-CV), upholding the Office of the Attorney General’s authority for child support enforcement.¹⁰¹

K.E.B.

Office of the Attorney General of Texas and d+.R.A (14-24-00810-CV), the final order denying a father’s challenge to wage garnishment and due process was affirmed.⁹⁷

The juvenile commitment in

In the Matter of C.B. (14-24-00842-CV) was affirmed, also based on an Anders brief.¹⁰²

The court conditionally granted a mandamus petition in

In re Park Square Co-Owners Association (14-25-00340-CV), finding no evidence of contempt for violating a temporary injunction related to a condominium assessment.¹⁰³

Lastly,

Pagewood Investments, LLC, Stanley Ego, Keith Thompson, and Davis Edwin v.

Noble One Group, LLC (14-25-00534-CV) was dismissed due to the appellants’ failure to pay the appellate filing fee ⁹⁷, and

Stacie Ann Shakir v.

SP Sheffield, LP (14-25-00567-CV) was dismissed due to an untimely filing of the notice of appeal.⁹⁷

The high volume and procedural nature of many of these Texas appellate decisions underscore the strict adherence to procedural rules in appellate practice.

The frequent dismissals for procedural deficiencies, such as failure to pay fees or untimely filings, highlight the importance of meticulous compliance with court rules.

The enforcement of contractual agreements like forum-selection clauses also demonstrates the courts’ commitment to upholding the terms agreed upon by parties.

These decisions reflect the critical role of Texas’s intermediate appellate courts in managing a vast caseload and ensuring the orderly progression of justice across a diverse range of legal issues.

IV. Conclusion

The appellate court decisions rendered on August 12, 2025, reflect a dynamic legal landscape, characterized by ongoing constitutional challenges, rigorous procedural enforcement, and the judiciary’s struggle to adapt existing laws to modern technological advancements.

A prominent theme is the continued judicial scrutiny of state legislative actions.

Decisions from the Eighth Circuit, upholding Arkansas’s transgender care ban and expanding on parental rights, illustrate a trend of conservative judicial interpretation impacting social issues.

Conversely, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Arizona’s child molestation statute for unconstitutionally shifting the burden of proof underscores the fundamental due process limits on state legislative power.

Similarly, the Sixth Circuit’s decision upholding Tennessee’s auctioneer licensing law, by classifying auctioneering as “conduct” rather than “speech,” demonstrates a willingness to broaden the scope of permissible state oversight of professions.

These varying outcomes highlight the persistent tension between state sovereignty, individual rights, and the evolving interpretations of constitutional principles.

Procedural and jurisdictional rigor remains a significant focus across federal and state appellate courts.

Rulings from the d+.C.

Circuit on FOIA exemptions, the Fifth Circuit on class certification, the Fourth Circuit on declaratory judgment standing, and the Eleventh Circuit on “self-inflicted harm” standing collectively indicate a tightening of access to federal courts or information.

This judicial emphasis on precise pleadings, concrete injuries, and strict adherence to procedural rules aims to streamline dockets but can also present substantial barriers for litigants.

The numerous dismissals for procedural deficiencies in Texas appellate courts further exemplify this commitment to formal legal processes.

The judiciary continues to grapple with the complexities introduced by technology and digital platforms.

The Ninth Circuit’s handling of the social media addiction case, while still in discovery, and its clarification of trade secret particularity in DNA sequencing disputes, showcase the challenges of applying established legal frameworks to rapidly evolving technological sectors.

The d+.C.

Circuit’s narrow interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act in a digital context further illustrates the difficulty of fitting new digital behaviors into older statutes, potentially leaving gaps in consumer protection.

Finally, the pervasive influence of recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence is undeniable.

Decisions from the Eighth Circuit directly applying a Supreme Court ruling on transgender care, the Third Circuit extending the impact of a Supreme Court administrative law decision, and the Sixth Circuit using a Supreme Court ruling to justify its divergence from agency interpretations, all demonstrate the profound ripple effect of the nation’s highest court.

This dynamic is particularly evident in the emergence of a significant circuit split on employer liability for non-employee harassment, where the Sixth Circuit’s unique “intent” standard contrasts sharply with the “negligence” approach of most other circuits and the EEOC.

Such conflicts among federal appellate courts signal areas ripe for potential Supreme Court intervention to ensure uniformity and clarity in federal law.

In sum, the appellate decisions of August 12, 2025, underscore the judiciary’s multifaceted role in interpreting and applying law in an increasingly complex society.

These rulings not only resolve individual disputes but also contribute to the ongoing evolution of legal precedent, shaping the rights and responsibilities of individuals, businesses, and governments alike.