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.

Case Summary:

United States v. Adam Power is a federal criminal appeal in which Adam Power challenges his federal child‑exploitation sentence in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, docket number 25‑1469, after pleading guilty in the district court to dozens of counts involving sexual exploitation of minors and related child‑pornography offenses and receiving a 60‑year prison term, with the appeal argued on January 27, 2026.

Case Summary:

In the district court, Vivian Ruggeri won a maritime personal injury action against NCL (Bahamas) Ltd arising from injuries she suffered on a cruise ship tender, and the case is now on cross-appeals in the Eleventh Circuit, where she is the appellee/cross‑appellant and NCL is the appellant/cross‑appellee.

At the lower court level, Ruggeri filed suit in the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 20‑cv‑21961‑DPG), alleging that she was injured on October 25, 2019, when an NCL tender ferrying passengers between the pier at Cannes, France and the Norwegian Epic was operated negligently, causing the vessel to pitch and roll and throwing her from side to side so that she grabbed a bench and tore her right rotator cuff, ultimately requiring two shoulder surgeries and extensive treatment. The court held an eight‑day bench trial before Judge Darrin Gayles and, in a Final Judgment entered December 18, 2023, found NCL liable on Count I for negligent failure to warn, rejected NCL’s attempt to limit damages under the Athens Convention based on misleading ticket language, and awarded Ruggeri a total of 1,016,770.54 dollars, consisting of 53,801.99 dollars in economic damages, 800,000 dollars in past non‑economic damages, and 162,968.55 dollars in prejudgment interest, plus post‑judgment interest and taxable costs.

In the present court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the case is docketed as No. 24‑10903, styled “Vivian Ruggeri, Appellee/Cross‑Appellant v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, Appellant/Cross‑Appellee,” and was argued on January 27, 2026, with NCL appealing the adverse judgment and Ruggeri cross‑appealing aspects of the district court’s rulings.

Case Summary:

Tajinder Singh v. Pamela Bondi is an immigration petition for review in which Tajinder Singh challenges a removal‑related decision involving claims for protection from return to India, now before the present federal court of appeals under docket number 25‑1521 and argued on January 27, 2026,

Case Summary:

United States v. Deshon Hill is a federal criminal case in which Deshon Hill was convicted in the district court and is now challenging that judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, docket number 24‑2972, where oral argument was held on January 27, 2026.

Case Summary:

People v. Gaines (Richard L. Gaines), docket number 4‑25‑0290, is a criminal appeal in which the defendant seeks review in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, of his conviction and sentence entered by the circuit court, with oral argument held in the present court on January 27, 2026, following the trial court’s judgment in favor of the People of the State of Illinois.