(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that probable cause to make an arrest defeats a claim that the arrest was in retaliation for protected speech. A man arrested at a winter sports festival claimed that the reason was his speech. However, because there was probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim failed as a matter of law. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. There were several concurring and dissenting opinions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Approved the Board of Immigration Appeals' practice of refusing to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, denied a petition for review filed by an asylum seeker who had presented a new argument regarding particular social groups to the Board, which refused to consider it.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a Chinese citizen's claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture based on evidence that he is a practicing Christian and reports that Christians are persecuted and tortured in China. Granted his petition for review in relevant part and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Granted a lawful permanent resident's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Held that his Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of several Xanax pills without a prescription did not render him removable.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an immigration judge did not abuse her discretion by denying a continuance. The immigrant wanted to delay his removal hearing in order to seek lawful permanent residence status based on a brief marriage to a U.S. citizen that immigration authorities had already found to be a sham.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an immigration matter, held that a Honduran woman who prevailed on a petition for review was not entitled to recover attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government's position was substantially justified, in this case involving a perceived-homosexuality asylum claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied an immigrant's petition for review of a removal decision, in a case involving specific immigration provisions affecting the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a U.S. territory. The Philippines citizen had arrived there as a lawful guest worker.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted an alien's petition for review of a removal decision. Held that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were not permitted to carry out preplanned mass detentions, interrogations and arrests at a factory without individualized reasonable suspicion. Remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to dismiss the Mexican citizen's removal proceeding without prejudice.

(United States Second Circuit) - Upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that a lawful permanent resident was ineligible for cancellation of removal. He had been found removable based on his New York convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. Denied the Irish citizen's petition for review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.

(United States Second Circuit) - Granted. Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying Plaintiff application for asylum. Plaintiff demonstrated changed circumstances and BIA was required to consider entire application. Remand application to BIA for limited purpose of granting application.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision to remove Plaintiff from the United States. The appeals court held that Plaintiff's conviction for indecent exposure was a crime involving moral turpitude and held that the BIA decision in Matter of Cortes Medina applied retroactively to Plaintiff making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Granted petition. Vacated removal order. Remanded. Plaintiff challenged denial of application for asylum. The immigration Judge denied application stating that it was not credible finding that there were inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony. The Appeals court held that two of the purported inconsistent statements were not inconsistent at all and the third inconsistency did not justify an adverse ruling.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Consolidated petition for review. Motion to reconsider denied. Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding an immigration judge’s in absentia removal order appropriate, where defendant waited 10 years before filing the motion to reopen his proceedings and did not meet the standard for equitable tolling based on limited English proficiency, nor meet the requirements for a sua sponte request based on lack of notice and ineffective counsel.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration decision denied, where Defendant could not show legal or constitutional reasons to provide court the jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. An ambiguous record regarding a state law conviction does not constitute a predicate offense that would bar eligibility for a cancellation of removal, overruling Young v. Holder, where Petitioner argued previous conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony did not reference a specific controlled substance.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied in part, dismissed in part. A Haitian national's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals denial of asylum and cancellation of removal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process were denied.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective counsel granted in part and denied in part. BIA applied a “clear probability” standard, rather than a “more likely than not” standard, when considering protection under the Convention Against Torture Act. Remanded to district court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Nothing in N.Y.C.C.’s record required the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals to conclude past persecution or reasonable fear of future persecution, where Petitioner could not show that she was unable to leave her abusive relationship, nor prove that she was the mother of a cartel member’s child.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. An in absentia order of removal could not be overturned because it was not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational it was arbitrary.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Plaintiff petitioned for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision for removal based on a judgment for Contempt of Court for violating a restraining order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Defendant's conviction for “strangulation” was categorically a crime of violence making him removable and ineligible for asylum; substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration’s denial of withholding of removal and relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding that solicitation of a crime as serious as possession of at least four pounds of marijuana was as turpitudinous as the crime itself, the panel denied Romo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she was inadmissible.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissed. The government appealed the district court’s granting in part of a motion to enforce a 1997 settlement agreement guaranteeing minors in the custody of immigration agencies be held in facilities that are safe and sanitary. The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not modify the agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed in the USC making an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. Finding that non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 USC Section 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings, the immigration judge deprived Zuniga of his right to counsel by failing to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. The panel held that petitioner’s reliance on his lawyer’s erroneous advice that he was not required to update his fingerprints was reasonable and constituted “good cause” to grant a continuance, and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding the record did not compel the conclusion that police officers did not persecute Singh on account of his imputed political opinions, the panel concluded his asylum claim fails.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Facebook evidence and cellphone data were properly admitted in the conviction of a man for stealing firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part. Defendant challenged his conviction for using firearms in the commission of violent crimes. Because categorizing crimes of violence cannot be done on a case-by-case basis, the defendant’s charge for using firearms in the commission of a robbery is vacated.

TV architect Julian Brenchley’s new small bar venture looks likely to become Sydney’s newest celebrity hangout.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a law firm's suit to enforce a fee-splitting agreement against another law firm, arising from an underlying class action, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant-law firm is reversed where an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevent another lawyer from complying with the rules' mandates.

(California Court of Appeal) - The trial court's order awarding attorney fees to defendant State Bar as the prevailing party on a special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint which sought to vacate a stipulation she had entered into with the defendant regarding two disciplinary actions against her, is reversed and remanded, where the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded it from awarding attorney fees under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

(United States Third Circuit) - In this appeal considering whether defendant-prison-administrators are entitled to qualified immunity for an inmate's suicide, the district court's order denying summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed, where defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from an Eighth Amendment claim that serious deficiencies in the provision of medical care by a private, third-party provider led to the inmate's suicide.

(United States Supreme Court) - Disciplinary sanctions imposed by the state bar, pursuant to Cannon 7(C)(1), on a candidate for judicial office, who mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions for her campaign, are affirmed over a First Amendment challenge, where Cannon 7(C)(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the Texas Medical Board did not violate a physician's Fourth Amendment rights when it used its subpoena authority to gain immediate access to his patients' medical records at a health clinic where he worked part-time. Reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and remand. Plaintiff, a prisoner, brought suit against prison official alleging that they arranged another inmate to attack him and stood by while he was severely injured. District court granted summary judgment with prejudice to Defendant for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appeals court found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but the proper disposition was dismissal without prejudice.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration for claims of negligent, elder abuse and wrongful death. The trial court found that the claims were not arbitratable because there was no arbitration agreement between Defendant and the decedent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on the basis of foreign official immunity, of a wrongful death action brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a musician whose video was taken down from YouTube, which posted a statement that the video had violated their terms of service, because using violence and profanity as examples of things that could result in the removal of a video did not amount to libel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an organization may not proceed with its defamation action alleging reputational harm from an article published in an American Bar Association law journal. The author's statements were non-actionable expressions of opinion. Affirmed a dismissal.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and vacating in part the US Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board inter partes review determination that a medical device company had not proven that the challenged patent claims were unpatentable in a suit relating to thoracic pedicle screws for scoliosis surgery.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the prevailing wage law applied here because the contractors (belt sorters at county recycling facilities) were engaged in public work. On a separate issue, addressed the statutory remedy for improperly shortening their meal periods by three to five minutes.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that an individual who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was not entitled to them because he was not disabled by bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction.