ALERT 2020 — Legal Education Report (February 9 – 20, 2026)

1. Villarreal v. Texas (argued Oct. 6, 2025)

Issue: Can a trial judge bar a defendant from talking to his lawyer about his ongoing testimony during an overnight recess without violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

2. Fernandez v. United States / Rutherford / Carter v. United States (argued Nov. 12, 2025)

Issue: How broad is “extraordinary and compelling” compassionate release after the First Step Act, and what limits, if any, apply to judge-made reasons?

3. Rico v. United States (argued Nov. 3–4, 2025)

Issue: Does the supervised-release clock stop when someone absconds, and what does the statute allow regarding fugitive tolling?

1. United States v. Hemani (argued Mar. 2, 2026)

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), gun possession by an unlawful user of controlled substances, violates the Second Amendment as applied.

2. Hunter v. United States (argued Mar. 3, 2026)

Issue: Appeal waivers, what exceptions exist, and what happens when the judge says the defendant can appeal anyway.

3. Abouammo v. United States (argued Mar. 30, 2026)

Issue: Venue — can the government prosecute in a district where no conduct occurred, based only on where “effects” were contemplated?

4. Chatrie v. United States (argued Apr. 27, 2026)

Issue: Geofence warrants, mass location-data warrants, and the Fourth Amendment.

A. Second Circuit — United States v. Roldan Cardenas (Feb. 18, 2026)

Roldan, a patrol-level Colombian police officer, admitted he took part in communications about a cocaine-import scheme but said he believed he was helping the Colombian National Police set up a seizure, meaning he lacked criminal intent. The trial court blocked undisputed evidence that the officer who recruited him had real prior experience in successful drug seizures, evidence that supported Roldan’s state-of-mind defense.

The Second Circuit held that excluding that evidence was error and that the error was not harmless because intent was the heart of the defense. The conviction was vacated and the case remanded.

Why inmates should care: When the defense is lack of criminal intent, courts cannot wrongly exclude corroborating evidence that supports the defendant’s state of mind.

B. Eighth Circuit — United States v. Johnson (Feb. 12, 2026)

The Eighth Circuit ruled that police unlawfully prolonged a traffic stop beyond the time needed to address the traffic issues. The government’s “community caretaking” theory did not justify the extra detention. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Why inmates should care: Even after a lawful stop, police cannot stretch it out to investigate unrelated suspicions without a valid legal reason. That can lead to suppression and reversal.

C. Ninth Circuit — United States v. Ho-Romero (Feb. 18, 2026)

The district court added a 2-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on alleged witness threats but used an objective approach and made no finding that the defendant intended to obstruct justice. The Ninth Circuit held its precedent requires a mens rea finding before § 3C1.1 applies. The sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Why inmates should care: Guideline enhancements often require specific findings. If the judge applies the wrong legal test or skips a required intent finding, that can be a strong sentencing issue.

The Supreme Court ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)’s “old-claims bar” does not apply to federal prisoners filing second-or-successive motions under § 2255(h).

Plain English: If you are a federal inmate trying to file a successive § 2255 motion, the government cannot automatically block it simply because a similar claim appeared in a prior application. That particular statutory bar does not apply to § 2255(h) motions.

Why this matters: Bowe can reopen arguments in successive-motion litigation and strengthen how authorization requests are framed in the courts of appeals.