25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA
Headline: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Defamation Claims Against Kari Lake and U.S.
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Political speech is protected, and the government can't be sued without its consent, leading to dismissal of defamation and other claims.
- Public figures must prove actual malice for defamation claims related to political speech.
- Sovereign immunity significantly restricts lawsuits against the U.S. government.
- Identify specific statutory waivers to overcome sovereign immunity.
Case Summary
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA, decided by D.C. Circuit on May 28, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case consolidated appeals concerning the dismissal of defamation claims brought by plaintiffs against Kari Lake and the dismissal of claims brought by plaintiffs against the United States government. The core dispute involved whether the defendants, Kari Lake and the U.S. government, were immune from suit for statements made and actions taken. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Kari Lake, finding her statements were political speech protected by the First Amendment and that she was not acting in an official capacity that would strip her of immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against the U.S. government, finding that the plaintiffs had not met the stringent requirements for waiving sovereign immunity. The court held: The court affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake, holding that her statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment and that she was not acting as a government official in a manner that would negate her immunity.. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the United States government, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for the alleged tortious conduct.. The court found that Kari Lake's statements, made during a political campaign, were core political speech and therefore entitled to broad First Amendment protection, shielding her from defamation liability in this context.. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity for the United States, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.. The court rejected arguments that Kari Lake's actions constituted defamation per se, finding that the statements, while potentially critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation without proof of specific damages..
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
The court ruled that statements made by Kari Lake during her political campaign are protected speech, meaning she cannot be sued for defamation over them unless it's proven she knowingly lied or recklessly disregarded the truth. Similarly, lawsuits against the U.S. government were dismissed because the government generally can't be sued unless it specifically agrees to be, and that wasn't shown here.
For Legal Practitioners
This consolidated appeal affirms the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake based on robust First Amendment protection for political speech, requiring a showing of actual malice which plaintiffs failed to meet. Claims against the U.S. government were also properly dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity under applicable statutes.
For Law Students
The court applied de novo review to uphold dismissals, finding Kari Lake's campaign statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment, barring defamation claims absent proof of actual malice. Claims against the U.S. government were dismissed based on sovereign immunity, as plaintiffs did not demonstrate a statutory waiver.
Newsroom Summary
A court upheld the dismissal of defamation lawsuits against Kari Lake, ruling her campaign statements are protected political speech. Claims against the U.S. government were also dismissed, citing sovereign immunity, meaning the government cannot be sued unless it consents.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake, holding that her statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment and that she was not acting as a government official in a manner that would negate her immunity.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the United States government, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for the alleged tortious conduct.
- The court found that Kari Lake's statements, made during a political campaign, were core political speech and therefore entitled to broad First Amendment protection, shielding her from defamation liability in this context.
- The court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity for the United States, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The court rejected arguments that Kari Lake's actions constituted defamation per se, finding that the statements, while potentially critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation without proof of specific damages.
Key Takeaways
- Public figures must prove actual malice for defamation claims related to political speech.
- Sovereign immunity significantly restricts lawsuits against the U.S. government.
- Identify specific statutory waivers to overcome sovereign immunity.
- First Amendment protections for political speech are robust.
- Consult legal counsel when considering defamation suits against public figures or suits against the government.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review, as the appeal concerns the interpretation of legal questions, specifically the scope of First Amendment protections for political speech and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Procedural Posture
The cases come before this Court on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, which dismissed the plaintiffs' defamation claims against Kari Lake and their claims against the United States government.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for overcoming sovereign immunity rests with the plaintiffs, who must demonstrate that their claims fall within a statutory waiver of immunity. For defamation claims against a public figure, the plaintiffs must prove actual malice, a high standard.
Legal Tests Applied
First Amendment Protection for Political Speech
Elements: Speech must be political in nature. · Speech must not fall into unprotected categories (e.g., incitement, true threats). · Statements made by public figures in the context of political campaigns are generally afforded robust protection.
The court applied this test to Kari Lake's statements, finding they were made in the context of a political campaign and constituted political speech, thus protected by the First Amendment. The court noted that even false statements made during political discourse are protected unless they meet the high standard of actual malice, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate.
Sovereign Immunity
Elements: The United States government is immune from suit unless it has waived that immunity. · Waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal and construed narrowly. · Plaintiffs must identify a specific statutory waiver that applies to their claims.
The court applied this to the claims against the U.S. government. The plaintiffs failed to identify any specific statutory waiver that unequivocally permitted their defamation claims against the government for the actions of its employees or agencies in this context. Therefore, sovereign immunity barred the suit.
Statutory References
| U.S. Const. amend. I | First Amendment — Relevant to protecting Kari Lake's statements as political speech, shielding her from defamation claims unless actual malice was proven. |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1604 | Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) — Establishes the general rule that foreign states are immune from jurisdiction of U.S. courts, but also provides exceptions. While not directly cited in the summary, the principle of sovereign immunity for the U.S. government is analogous and central to the dismissal of claims against the U.S. |
Constitutional Issues
First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
Statements made by candidates during political campaigns, even if false, are generally protected by the First Amendment.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity shields the United States government from suit unless there is a clear and unequivocal waiver of that immunity.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that their claims fall within a specific statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.
Remedies
Affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Kari Lake.Affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the United States government.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Public figures must prove actual malice for defamation claims related to political speech.
- Sovereign immunity significantly restricts lawsuits against the U.S. government.
- Identify specific statutory waivers to overcome sovereign immunity.
- First Amendment protections for political speech are robust.
- Consult legal counsel when considering defamation suits against public figures or suits against the government.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a journalist covering a political candidate who makes a statement about your employer that you believe is false and damaging.
Your Rights: You have the right to sue for defamation, but if the candidate is a public figure and the statement was made during a political campaign, you must prove they acted with 'actual malice' – meaning they knew it was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
What To Do: Gather evidence of the statement's falsity and any proof of the candidate's knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Consult with an attorney specializing in First Amendment or media law.
Scenario: You believe a federal agency has harmed you financially due to an error in its operations, and you want to sue the U.S. government.
Your Rights: Your right to sue the U.S. government is severely limited by sovereign immunity. You can only sue if there is a specific law that clearly waives this immunity for your type of claim.
What To Do: Identify the specific federal statute that might waive sovereign immunity for your claim. Consult with an attorney experienced in suing the federal government to determine if such a waiver exists and if your claim meets its requirements.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to criticize a political opponent, even if the criticism is false?
Depends. While false statements of fact can be defamatory, statements made by political figures during campaigns are generally protected by the First Amendment. You can only sue for defamation if you can prove the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (actual malice).
Applies to federal First Amendment protections, which are broadly applicable.
Practical Implications
For Political candidates and public figures
The ruling reinforces that their statements made during campaigns, even if false, are highly protected speech. Lawsuits against them for such statements will face a high bar, requiring proof of actual malice.
For Individuals or entities seeking to sue the U.S. government
The ruling underscores the difficulty in suing the federal government due to sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs must meticulously identify and prove a specific statutory waiver of immunity applies to their claims.
For Media organizations and journalists
The decision highlights the broad protection afforded to political speech, impacting the potential for defamation claims against media outlets reporting on or quoting political figures during campaigns.
Related Legal Concepts
A legal principle in defamation law that requires public figures to meet a highe... Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
The specific circumstances under which the government has consented to be sued, ... Actual Malice Standard
The requirement that a plaintiff prove a defendant published a defamatory statem...
Frequently Asked Questions (35)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA about?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA is a case decided by D.C. Circuit on May 28, 2025.
Q: What court decided 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA was decided by the D.C. Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA decided?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA was decided on May 28, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
The citation for 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the core issue in cases involving Kari Lake's statements?
The core issue is the balance between protecting an individual's reputation from false statements and safeguarding robust political speech under the First Amendment.
Q: Who are the parties involved in these consolidated cases?
The plaintiffs are Patsy Widakuswara, Michael Abramowitz, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., and Radio Free Asia. The defendants are Kari Lake and the United States government.
Q: What court heard these appeals?
These appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CADC).
Q: What types of claims were dismissed?
Defamation claims against Kari Lake and claims against the United States government were dismissed.
Legal Analysis (14)
Q: Is 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA published?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA cover?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA covers the following legal topics: Defamation law, First Amendment free speech, State action doctrine, Pleading standards for civil claims, Appellate review of dismissals.
Q: What was the ruling in 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA. Key holdings: The court affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake, holding that her statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment and that she was not acting as a government official in a manner that would negate her immunity.; The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the United States government, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for the alleged tortious conduct.; The court found that Kari Lake's statements, made during a political campaign, were core political speech and therefore entitled to broad First Amendment protection, shielding her from defamation liability in this context.; The court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity for the United States, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.; The court rejected arguments that Kari Lake's actions constituted defamation per se, finding that the statements, while potentially critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation without proof of specific damages..
Q: What precedent does 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA set?
25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA established the following key holdings: (1) The court affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake, holding that her statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment and that she was not acting as a government official in a manner that would negate her immunity. (2) The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the United States government, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for the alleged tortious conduct. (3) The court found that Kari Lake's statements, made during a political campaign, were core political speech and therefore entitled to broad First Amendment protection, shielding her from defamation liability in this context. (4) The court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity for the United States, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. (5) The court rejected arguments that Kari Lake's actions constituted defamation per se, finding that the statements, while potentially critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation without proof of specific damages.
Q: What are the key holdings in 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
1. The court affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims against Kari Lake, holding that her statements constituted protected political speech under the First Amendment and that she was not acting as a government official in a manner that would negate her immunity. 2. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the United States government, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for the alleged tortious conduct. 3. The court found that Kari Lake's statements, made during a political campaign, were core political speech and therefore entitled to broad First Amendment protection, shielding her from defamation liability in this context. 4. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity for the United States, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. 5. The court rejected arguments that Kari Lake's actions constituted defamation per se, finding that the statements, while potentially critical, did not meet the legal threshold for defamation without proof of specific damages.
Q: What cases are related to 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
Precedent cases cited or related to 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941).
Q: Can Kari Lake be sued for defamation for statements made during her campaign?
Generally no, unless the plaintiffs can prove she acted with actual malice. The court found her statements were protected political speech under the First Amendment.
Q: What is 'actual malice' in defamation cases?
Actual malice means the person making the statement knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. This is a high standard required for public figures.
Q: Why were the claims against the U.S. government dismissed?
The claims were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a specific statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, which generally protects the government from being sued.
Q: What is sovereign immunity?
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents the government from being sued without its consent. The government must explicitly waive this immunity for a lawsuit to proceed.
Q: Are all statements made by politicians protected speech?
Statements made in the context of political campaigns receive strong First Amendment protection. However, this protection is not absolute and can be overcome if actual malice is proven.
Q: Does the First Amendment protect all speech?
No, the First Amendment does not protect all speech. Certain categories, like incitement or true threats, are not protected. However, political speech receives very strong protection.
Q: Are there exceptions to sovereign immunity?
Yes, Congress can create exceptions by statute, waiving sovereign immunity for specific types of claims. However, these waivers are construed narrowly.
Q: How does the public figure doctrine relate to this case?
The public figure doctrine is central because it dictates the higher 'actual malice' standard plaintiffs must meet to prove defamation against public figures like Kari Lake.
Practical Implications (4)
Q: Can I sue the government for a mistake made by a federal employee?
It depends on the specific circumstances and whether a law exists that waives sovereign immunity for that type of claim. This case shows it is very difficult to sue the U.S. government.
Q: What should I do if I believe a politician has defamed me?
Gather evidence of the false statement and any proof of actual malice. It is crucial to consult with an attorney experienced in defamation law and the First Amendment.
Q: How does this ruling affect future political campaigns?
It reinforces the idea that candidates can speak robustly, even making false statements, without fear of defamation lawsuits, as long as they don't meet the high bar of actual malice.
Q: What are the implications for media reporting on political figures?
Media outlets have more latitude in reporting on or quoting political figures during campaigns, as the figures themselves have broad speech protections and must meet a high standard to sue for defamation.
Historical Context (1)
Q: What is the historical context of sovereign immunity?
Sovereign immunity has roots in English common law, stemming from the principle that the king could not be sued without his consent. This principle was adopted into U.S. law.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA?
The docket number for 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA is 25-5144, 25-5145, 25-5150, & 25-5151. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What does 'de novo' review mean in this case?
De novo review means the appellate court looks at the case anew, without giving deference to the lower court's legal conclusions. The court reviewed the legal questions of First Amendment protection and sovereign immunity from scratch.
Q: What is the standard of review for defamation claims against public figures?
The standard of review for the underlying defamation claim is typically 'clear and convincing evidence' of actual malice. However, the appellate court reviewed the dismissal of these claims de novo.
Q: What is the procedural posture of these cases?
These cases are on appeal after the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against both Kari Lake and the U.S. government.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941)
Case Details
| Case Name | 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA |
| Citation | |
| Court | D.C. Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-28 |
| Docket Number | 25-5144, 25-5145, 25-5150, & 25-5151 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | First Amendment political speech, Defamation law, Sovereign immunity, Federal Tort Claims Act, Official capacity immunity, Political speech protection |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of 25-5144 Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; 25-5145 Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake; 25-5150 Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. USA; & 25-5151 Radio Free Asia v. USA was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on First Amendment political speech or from the D.C. Circuit:
-
J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission
D.C. Circuit Affirms ITC's No-Infringement Finding in Trade CaseD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-24
-
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Markwayne Mullin
Asylum seekers lack standing to challenge park shelter settlementD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-24
-
United States v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina
D.C. Circuit Upholds Warrantless Search of M/T Arina CargoD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service
NPS Concessions in Historic Park Upheld by D.C. CircuitD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Inova Health Care Services v. Omni Shoreham Corporation
Court finds Omni Shoreham liable for unpaid healthcare servicesD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Jane Doe v. Todd Blanche
Attorney's statements during litigation are privileged, barring defamation claimD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
John Doe v. SEC
D.C. Circuit: SEC ALJs violate Appointments ClauseD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc.
D.C. Circuit Upholds NLRB Finding of Unlawful Retaliation Against EmployeesD.C. Circuit · 2026-04-17