Oral Arguments from the U.S. Court of Appeals

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.

Case Summary:
Victor Palencia Gomez v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. is a personal‑injury, human‑rights–related appeal arising out of the long‑running multidistrict litigation over Chiquita’s alleged support for Colombian paramilitary groups, in which a group of Colombian plaintiffs including Victor Palencia Gomez seek to uphold a Rule 54(b) final judgment entered in their favor against Chiquita in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, now on review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under docket number 24‑13770, with oral argument held before that court on January 30, 2026.

Case Summary:
United States v. Tommie Haney is a federal criminal appeal in which Tommie L. Haney is challenging the judgment entered against him in the United States Court of Appeals under docket number 25‑1302, with oral argument held on January 30, 2026.
At the trial level, Haney was prosecuted in the Western District of Wisconsin for participating as a local leader in a methamphetamine and cocaine trafficking organization centered in the Wausau area, and he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine and 500 grams of cocaine. He worked with out‑of‑state suppliers, arranged bulk drug purchases, helped set drug prices, recruited others, and personally distributed significant quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine over multiple dates in 2022 and 2023. The district court sentenced him to 14 years in federal prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release, which is the judgment that now underlies his current appeal.

Case Summary:
Rosenthal v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation is a federal civil‑rights and due‑process appeal brought by former RIOC President and CEO Susan G. Rosenthal challenging the dismissal of her lawsuit against RIOC and state officials in the United States Court of Appeals under docket number 25‑1667, following oral argument on January 30, 2026.
In the underlying federal case in the Southern District of New York (No. 1:23‑cv‑09660, Judge Dale E. Ho), Rosenthal alleged that her June 2020 termination as RIOC President/CEO—officially justified by accusations that she had used offensive, “salacious” and racially charged language—was in fact retaliatory and politically motivated, tied to her efforts to raise infrastructure and safety concerns, and that she was publicly branded a racist without a meaningful chance to clear her name. She asserted a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due‑process “stigma‑plus” claim, contending that the State of New York and RIOC violated her constitutional rights by publicly disseminating allegedly false reasons for her firing and denying her a name‑clearing hearing, and she further argued that prior state‑court Article 78 and related proceedings did not give her adequate process.
The defendants (RIOC and associated state officials) moved to dismiss primarily on res judicata and preclusion grounds, maintaining that Rosenthal had already litigated or could have litigated these issues in earlier New York state‑court proceedings (an Article 78 and a plenary state action) which ended in final judgments against her, and that federal courts must give those state judgments full faith and credit. The district court agreed, holding that New York’s transactional approach to res judicata barred her federal due‑process claims because they arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as her prior state cases; the court also held that Article 78 and related procedures provided constitutionally adequate process, and therefore dismissed her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Rosenthal’s present appeal challenges that dismissal, arguing that her federal due‑process claim is not precluded by the prior state litigation and that she never received a meaningful, constitutionally sufficient opportunity to clear her name after being publicly accused of misconduct and terminated from her public‑sector leadership role.