Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus Powell. Trenton Powell was convicted of federal child-exploitation offenses involving sexual abuse images. The district court found that three charged photographs were taken inside his home and ordered his interest in the home forfeited to the government. This appeal concerns that property order, not his convictions. Criminal forfeiture takes property as part of a criminal sentence, rather than compensating a victim. Title Eighteen, Section Twenty-two Fifty-three covers property used to commit or promote specified offenses. The required legal connection between the property and the crimes is called a nexus. Powell's lawyer will argue that taking handheld-phone pictures indoors does not sufficiently connect the house itself to the offenses, and that uncharged abuse cannot substitute for that link. The government will maintain that the home's privacy and its role in bringing the victim there helped facilitate the charged offenses.

United States v. Trenton Powell (No. 25-3792) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026.

Sources:

Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-3792.mp3

Case and argument date — official court archive:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3792&hearingDate=2026-10-16

Background and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 5, 2025, Doc. 198; not this appeal outcome:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290-5.pdf

Criminal forfeiture statute — 18 U.S.C. § 2253:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2253

Forfeiture procedure and third-party claims — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32.2

Excessive Fines Clause — United States v. Bajakajian, Supreme Court majority:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/

The Ninth Circuit hears Gumusyazici versus the United States. She was a passenger in a car driven by her sister on a reservation road. The car skidded toward a utility pole near a curve. Her sister steered away, and the car left the road and rolled over, seriously injuring her. She sued over allegedly unsafe road design, including the absence of a guardrail. The road was maintained by a tribe under a federal transportation agreement. The district court ruled for the government without a trial, treating design decisions as protected and finding insufficient evidence that negligence caused the crash. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows certain negligence suits against the United States. Its discretionary-function exception protects discretionary choices that can involve public-policy balancing, even when discretion is abused. Her representatives will argue that this was an ordinary engineering-safety problem, not protected policymaking. They will also distinguish causing the skid from failing to limit her injuries. The government will contend that these road-design choices involve balancing safety, cost and tribal community values.

Acker Gumusyazici v. United States (No. 25-4580) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026.

Sources:

Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-4580.mp3

Case and argument date — official court archive:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4580&hearingDate=2026-10-16

Facts and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 27, 2025, Doc. 42; not this appeal outcome:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324-0.pdf

Federal Tort Claims Act — 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346

Discretionary-function exception — 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680

Tribal transportation design factors — 25 C.F.R. § 170.455:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/170.455

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus American Horse. American Horse was prosecuted in Montana on sexual-abuse charges after two girls reported abuse. This appeal concerns the remedy for late disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. That includes evidence that can undermine a witness's credibility. A continuance postpones a trial to give more preparation time. The lawyers will debate when that is an adequate remedy, and when prosecutorial misconduct calls for dismissing the indictment instead. Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge latitude to choose among legally permissible remedies.

United States v. American Horse (No. 25-5736) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026.

Sources:

Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-5736.mp3

Case and argument date — official court archive:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5736&hearingDate=2026-10-16

Background — D. Montana CR23-63-GF-BMM, February14,2025 suppression order; confirms the prosecution, not the disclosure ruling at issue here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063-0.pdf

Additional prosecution background — U.S. Attorney, April10,2025; government account:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/federal-jury-convicts-south-dakota-man-sexually-abusing-two-victims-fort-belknap-indian

Favorable material evidence — Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S.83,87 (1963), primary judicial text:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/

Witness credibility evidence — Giglio v. United States, 405U.S.150,153-154 (1972), primary judicial text:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/

Ninth Circuit disclosure and remedy principles — United States v. Bundy, 968F.3d1019 (2020), pages21-24 and48-51; not this appeal outcome:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/06/18-10287.pdf

Ninth Circuit remedy principles — United States v. Chapman, 524F.3d1073 (2008), pages18-22; not this appeal outcome:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/05/06/0610316.pdf

The D.C. Circuit hears Al Moumin versus the Republic of Iraq. Al Moumin is a former Iraqi environment minister. She says Iraq stopped paying her pension. She alleges that Nouri al-Maliki, then Iraq's senior vice president, later hired her to provide consulting services from the United States. Instead of a salary, she says, he promised to restore her pension. She says she did the work for more than a year but was never paid. She sued Iraq, which invokes sovereign immunity: a foreign state's general protection from being sued in American courts. The district court dismissed her standalone pension claim but let her consulting claim survive an initial motion to dismiss. That was not a finding that the agreement existed or that Iraq owed her money. Iraq will argue that this was personal political work and that al-Maliki lacked authority to bind the government. Al Moumin will contend it was government consulting covered by the commercial-activity exception to immunity. She will also ask the court to revive her separate pension claim.

Mishkat Al Moumin v. Republic of Iraq (No. 25-7153) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026.

Sources:

Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-7153.mp3

Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10

Background and ruling under review — D.D.C. 22-cv-2267, September 10, 2025 opinion; primary judicial text mirrored by FindLaw, not this appeal outcome:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/117693895.html

Former environment-minister role — June 9, 2010 House hearing, PDF pages 59 and 65; biographical corroboration only:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56887/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg56887.pdf

Foreign sovereign immunity — 28 U.S.C. §1604:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1604

Commercial-activity exception — 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605

Limits on pendent appellate review — Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35, 50–51 (1995); general law, not this case outcome:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1636.ZO.html

D.C. Circuit pendent-review principles — Kilburn, 376 F.3d 1123 (2004), Part V; general law, not this case outcome:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/376/376.F3d.1123.03-7117.html

The Ninth Circuit hears Nicholas Severns' challenge to evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Tribal officers stopped a rental car for speeding in Browning, on Montana's Blackfeet Reservation. Severns was the passenger, and neither occupant had a valid driver's license. Officers checked their identities and warrants, called county law enforcement, and used a drug-detection dog. The investigation uncovered fentanyl. Severns asked the district court to keep the evidence out, saying the officers had unlawfully prolonged the stop. The judge rejected that request, finding that the officers acted reasonably. This appeal brings together two Supreme Court decisions: Cooley, addressing tribal officers' authority over non-Indians, and Rodriguez, limiting how long a traffic stop may last. Severns will argue that waiting about fifteen minutes to contact county officers created extra time for an unrelated drug investigation. The government will respond that routine identification and warrant checks were still underway, so there was no unlawful extension.

United States v. Severns (No. 25-7217) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026.

Sources:

Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-7217.mp3

Case and argument date — official court archive:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7217&hearingDate=2026-10-16

Background and ruling under review — D. Montana CR 24-89-GF-BMM, June 11, 2025 suppression order, primary judicial text mirrored by CaseMine; not this appeal outcome:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/684b8ea84fd8ac5bd8c39bcc

Additional case background — U.S. Attorney's July 16, 2025 account; police narrative attributed to government court filings:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/spokane-man-pleads-guilty-drug-charges