Case Summary:

At the lower court level, F. F. v. Valley View Community Unit School District 365U was a federal civil-rights and education case in which a parent, on behalf of a minor student identified as F.F., sued Valley View Community Unit School District 365U and related defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case number 1:25‑cv‑09112, challenging the district’s school policies on constitutional and statutory grounds and seeking, among other relief, a preliminary injunction that the district court (Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman) denied on September 30, 2025; the case is now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as F. F. v. Valley View Community Unit School District No. 36, docket number 25‑2735, where oral argument was held on January 27, 2026

Case Summary:

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs Multimedia Technologies, Inc., Geoffrey Anderson, and Peach Hospitality of Georgia, LLC sued the City of Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that the City’s efforts to force removal of two long‑existing billboard signs and to enforce related arrest citations violated their rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including free speech and due process protections. The suit arose after Atlanta, having previously permitted the signs under its 1982 sign code and later amended its code in 2015, demanded removal of Multimedia’s nonconforming signs, and when Multimedia refused, the City issued arrest citations to Multimedia’s president and Peach Hospitality’s registered agent, prompting the plaintiffs to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court to prevent enforcement of the sign code and the citations. The district court (Judge Victoria M. Calvert) granted summary judgment to the City of Atlanta on Rooker‑Feldman grounds as to Multimedia, holding that the federal claims were an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already lost in prior Georgia state‑court proceedings concerning the same signs, while staying proceedings as to Anderson and Peach and certifying a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b), thus setting the stage for an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

In the present court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the case is docketed as Geoffrey Anderson, et al. v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, No. 24‑13509, and Anderson and his co‑plaintiffs now appeal from the district court’s adverse judgment and certification order; the Eleventh Circuit placed the case on its oral‑argument calendar for January 27, 2026, at the Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard argument that day.

Case Summary:

At the lower level, the case involves an immigration removal proceeding against Jose Aristy‑Rosa, which resulted in a final administrative decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on petition for review.

Jose Arcenio Aristy‑Rosa, a noncitizen with prior criminal convictions, was placed in removal proceedings in immigration court, where an Immigration Judge denied his applications for relief and ordered him removed from the United States; the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal and upheld the removal order, and Aristy‑Rosa then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, docket number 25‑1490, where the case, styled Aristy‑Rosa v. Attorney General United States of America, was argued on January 27, 2026.