James Jones v. Harry

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC., PLASTIC SERVICES AND PRODUCTS, LLC, dba Genova Pipe, MICROKITS, LLC, FISHUSA INC., TERRY PRECISION CYCLING LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as Pres- ident of the United States, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES, PETE R. FLORES, Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official ca- pacity as Acting Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, JAMIESON GREER, in his official capacity as United States Trade Representative, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, HOWARD LUTNICK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2025-1812 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00066-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S. 2 V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani. ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF VERMONT, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, PETE R. FLORES, Acting Commissioner for United States Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, UNITED STATES, Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2025-1813 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR, Judge Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Timothy M. Reif, and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP 3 Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 1 PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States’s motions for a stay of the United States Court of International Trade’s rulings enjoining cer- tain Executive Orders imposing tariffs, the Plaintiffs-Ap- pellees’ oppositions, and the United States’s reply were presented to all circuit judges of this court in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified. Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors, see Fed. R. App. P. 8; Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009), the court con- cludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances. See also Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1415, 1415 (2025) (per curiam) (“The purpose of . . . interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the par- ties, but to balance the equities as the litigation moves for- ward.” (quoting Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571, 580 (2017)). The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance war- ranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for a stay pending appeal are granted. (2) All motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae re- garding the stay motions are granted. (3) These consolidated cases will be heard en banc un- der 28 U.S.C. § 46 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate. 4 V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP 40(g). The court en banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). (4) Within two business days from the issuance of this order, the parties are directed to jointly file a proposed ex- pedited briefing schedule. The proposed briefing schedule should allow for this court to hold oral argument on July 31, 2025 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 201. If the parties cannot agree upon a schedule, the joint submission should include the parties’ alternative proposals.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0284n.06 Case No. 23-1640 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Jun 09, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF DANYELLE AMUND PHILLIPS, JR., ) MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Danyelle Phillips Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, Phillips reserved the right to seek appellate review of the district court’s determination that section 922(g)(1) does not violate the Constitution on its face. He does so now. But our court recently held that section 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional. United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024). As Phillips recognizes, this panel can’t overrule that decision, so we affirm.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5217 September Term, 2024 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Filed On: June 10, 2025 J.G.G., et al., Appellees v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Appellants BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an administrative stay, it is ORDERED that those portions of the district court’s order entered on June 4, 2025, granting in part appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction, granting in part their motion for class certification, and ordering appellants to file a notice by June 11, 2025, be administratively stayed pending further order of the court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024). It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellees file a response to the emergency motion by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 16, 2025. Any reply is due by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Lynda M. Flippin Deputy Clerk

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5266 September Term, 2024 1:25-cv-01051-EGS 1:25-cv-01111-EGS Filed On: August 9, 2025 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Appellee v. Office of Management and Budget and Russell T. Vought, in his official capacity as Director, Office of Management and Budget, Appellants ------------------------------ Consolidated with 25-5267 BEFORE: Henderson*, Wilkins, and Garcia, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motion for a stay, the response thereto, and the reply; and the amicus brief, which the court construes as including a motion for leave to file, it is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the administrative stay entered on July 23, 2025, be dissolved effective August 15, 2025, to allow the government sufficient time to restore the database and disclose materials withheld since March, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, div. E, tit. II, § 204(b), 136 Stat. 49, 257, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328, div. E, tit. II, § 204, 136 Stat. 4459, 4667, and the district court’s order. It is * A statement by Circuit Judge Henderson respecting the denial of a stay pending appeal is attached. Circuit Judge Wilkins joins in the statement.  United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5266 September Term, 2024 FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file the amicus brief be granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a stay be denied. Appellants have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024). Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Scott H. Atchue Deputy Clerk Page 2  KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, statement respecting the denial of a stay pending appeal: Throughout the 1600s, the Stuart monarchs engaged in a titanic struggle with Parliament regarding who would reign supreme over the public purse. That struggle was marked by civil war, regicide and a new wellspring of liberty in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. By the end of the upheaval, Parliament emerged supreme in matters of taxation and spending. Our Constitution followed suit, granting the Congress plenary control over the public fisc. Recently, the Executive has once again locked horns in a struggle for control over the purse strings. Across a slew of cases, recipients of congressional funding have challenged the President’s ability to unilaterally freeze or “impound” spending.1 Today’s case is but the latest chapter in the ongoing saga. 1 See, e.g., AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. Dep’t of State (AVAC I), 766 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.D.C. 2025); AIDS Vaccine Advoc. Coal. v. Dep’t of State (AVAC II), 770 F. Supp. 3d 121 (D.D.C. 2025); Am. Council of Learned Soc’ys v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-3657, 2025 WL 2097738 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2025); Am. Ctr. for Int’l Lab. Solidarity v. Chavez-DeRemer, No. 25-cv-1128, 2025 WL 1795090 (D.D.C. June 30, 2025); Am. Libr. Ass’n v. Sonderling, No. 25-cv-1050, 2025 WL 1615771 (D.D.C. June 6, 2025); Ass’n for Educ. Fin. & Pol’y, Inc. v. McMahon, No. 1:25-cv-999, 2025 WL 1568301 (D.D.C. June 3, 2025); Rhode Island v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-128, 2025 WL 1303868 (D.R.I. May 6, 2025); S. Educ. Found. v. Dep’t of Educ., No. 25-cv-1079, 2025 WL 1453047 (D.D.C. May 21, 2025); U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops v. Dep’t of State, 770 F. Supp. 3d 155 (D.D.C. 2025); In re Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.—Nat’l Insts. of Health—Application of Impoundment Control Act to Availability of Funds for Grants, B-337203 (Gov’t Accountability Off. Aug. 5, 2025), [https://perma.cc/9524-MBWA]; In re Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Highway Admin.— Application of the Impoundment Control Act to Memorandum Suspending Approval of State Elec. Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans (Gov’t Accountability Off. May 2

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-1762 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TYLEE BROWN, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 3:20-cr-00262-001) District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 16, 2025 ____________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, MONTGOMERY-REEVES and McKEE, Circuit Judges (Filed: August 12, 2025) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Tylee Brown moved to suppress evidence found during the search of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. Brown argues that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights not only when officers detained him outside the vehicle, but also when they later stopped the car, prolonged the stop, and searched the car. For the reasons below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. We write primarily for the parties and so recite only those facts pertinent to our decision. Police officers were investigating a rural lot in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania after receiving a report for stolen property allegedly located at the lot. As the officers entered the lot, where it was raining heavily, a Volkswagen sedan pulled up to the driveway. The driver of the vehicle, Edwin Blaisure, exited and spoke to the officers. They discovered that Blaisure had an active arrest warrant out of New York, prompting the officers to take him into custody. As the officers arrested Blaisure, another vehicle arrived on the scene. A Chrysler sedan with heavily tinted windows approached the driveway, but then abruptly stopped, backed up, and became stuck in the mud along the roadway. The front-seat passenger, Brown, then exited the vehicle and began pushing it from behind. After this unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the car, Brown ran into the wooded area surrounding the lot, unbeknownst to the officers as they approached the Chrysler. When the officers eventually realized Brown’s flight, they pursued and apprehended him. Brown explained that he ran because he was on parole and had marijuana in his possession, which he said 2 he discarded into the woods. The officers did not locate any marijuana and began escorting Brown back to the lot in handcuffs. Other officers, meanwhile, were questioning the remaining occupants of the Chrysler. The driver and owner of the vehicle, Heriberto Delmoral, stated that he came from Philadelphia to the lot to have his car mirrors repaired. Delmoral also explained that Brown paid him $200 to drive him to the lot, where one of Brown’s vehicles was being painted. Neither Delmoral nor the other occupants of the vehicle, Alisha Blye and her young child, had physical identification in their possession. The questioning officer observed that the journey from Philadelphia to the rural lot would have taken five hours round-trip. The officer also noticed that Delmoral was winking and nodding at him as they were speaking, which the officer found “extremely” unusual. Appendix (“App.”) 132. Brown and the officers then returned to the lot. The officers conducted a pat- down of Brown, noting to him that he “ran for no reason.” App. 19. The pat-down uncovered two cellphones in Brown’s possession, which the officers associated with trafficking of contraband. During the pat-down, the officers also asked Brown about the rather long route for customary car repairs. Brown responded that he knew the lot owner and had left another car, a Range Rover, to be repaired as well, but officers could not locate any Range Rover on the premises. Brown also clarified that his travel originated in Norristown (a suburb of Philadelphia) and included a stop in Scranton before their arrival to the lot. 3  The officers, suspecting that the Chrysler contained contrab