News & Notes

1.  On Tuesday, the court had its Jewish American History Month presentation at the courthouse.  Judge Leibowitz presided over an interesting panel and his family Norman and Irman Braman were honored.

2.  While we are on Jewish American History Month, Judge Roy Altman's book Israel on Trial is #12 on the New York Times best seller list.

3.  Switching gears, the Haitian murder jury is deliberating.  Day #2 starts today.

4.  Lots of immigration battles occurring now in our courts.  The 11th Circuit had this 2-1 opinion yesterday covering 110 pages of debate between Judges Marcus and Rosenbaum on one side, and Judge Lagoa on the other.  Marcus starts this way:

The question we face today is whether unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings. For nearly thirty years, the answer to that question was, for most aliens, “yes.” Last year, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) took a different view. It now maintains that these aliens must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). We are called on to decide if the Government’s new reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is correct. Hundreds of district courts and four other circuits have already weighed in, reaching well-reasoned yet distinctly contrary conclusions. See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). This is the first time our Court has addressed the question. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioners -- Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez and Ismael Cerro Perez -- were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Each challenged his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 28 U.S.C.). On review of Petitioners’ habeas claims, the district court held that the discretionary detention provisions found in § 1226 governed their detention instead, rendering each of them eligible for bond. The Government appeals that decision. It insists that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioners -- as aliens present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted -- are “applicants for admission,” and so they must be detained without the possibility of bond unless they can establish clearly and beyond a doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. We are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone “lawful entry,” when he was detained following a traffic stop. The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that nobond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here. Finally, we reject the Government’s claim that even if it has misread the INA, Petitioners are now “seeking admission” because they did not voluntarily self-deport after the initiation of removal proceedings. We do not hold that Congress is without the power to authorize the detention of unadmitted aliens who are simply present in the country. That question is not before us. We hold only that Congress has not done so under the provisions found in the INA. Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us. We affirm the grant of habeas relief in each of these consolidated cases.

Judge Lagoa starts her dissent:

The majority concedes that “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission,” on their ordinary meaning, are “synonymous.” Maj. Op. 15–16. It then spends fifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). So do I. I respectfully dissent.  

Judge Edward B. Davis

Thank you to John and the Federal Bar Association for these wonderful portrait posts.  I really enjoy them. This week we have my old boss, Chief Judge Edward B. Davis.  I wanted to say a few words about this giant of a man – both literally and figuratively.  Judge Davis was the ideal judge.  I have so many great stories about him from my clerkship back in 1997. 

The first Friday of my clerkship, around 4:30pm, he asked me to get the other clerks and to pour everyone a drink.  He gestured to the cabinet.  We sat around and had scotch and discussed the first week.  Hard to describe the moment of sitting with your boss, drinking scotch, and discussing the law and cases. 

I remember the Frank Quintero trial and Frank walking out the door.  Judge Davis was happy for him.

I remember driving Judge Davis in his huge Cadillac to Fort Pierce and him telling me to “step on it, son.”

I remember watching Dick Gregorie try a case against Hugo Rodriguez and Hector Flores and watching Judge Davis turn his chair around and laugh when there was some pushing and pulling of a big poster board during opening.

But the thing that sticks with me the most is how he treated everyone – lawyers, litigants, defendants, staff – the same.  With humility and respect.  And humor.  The absolute best. 

After seeing how some of our judges treat lawyers and their clients these days, we really need more like Judge Davis.

***FBA Post Below***

Judge Davis was nominated to the district court by President Carter in 1979; he served on the court until 2000. In his youth, Judge Davis achieved athletic excellence in baseball, basketball, and football, earning the nickname “Boomer.” He signed with the Detroit Tigers out of high school, but his professional baseball career ended as a result of two years’ service in the U.S. Army, where he served in the Korean War. On the bench, Judge Davis was known for treating all who came before him with respect. Described as “selfless, compassionate, caring, bright and kind,” Judge Davis left a legacy of service and excellence. 

RIP James Lawrence King

 An icon. 98 years old and was on the federal bench since 1970... one of the longest serving ever.

From Judge Moreno:

Judge King died this morning. He was a great trial judge particularly in his first 4 decades of service. I tried several cases , including a murder trial in the early 80s and can attest how fair he was pre trial and even at sentencing. He was a great Chief Judge, got the buildings for Miami. Appointed by Nixon in 1970 he served as an active judge until he took senior status as soon as he was eligible to help the court get a replacement in those busier days. He was no

longer taking cases because of illness but served for 55 years. May he rest in peace. FAM

I will post other comments here as well.

Judge Williams Appoints Amici in Trump v. IRS

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Williams sua sponte appointed three friends of the court to opine as to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit President Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The parties had asked for 90 days to explore potential settlement and Judge Williams expressed concerns regarding whether the parties are truly adverse.

Judge Williams appointed heavyweights from outside the district to opine, namley: John Gleeson and David A. O’Neil of Debevoise and Plimpton; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger Tolles; and Faith E. Gay, Philippe Z. Selendy, and Corey Stoughton of Selendy Gay. Their memorandum is due on May 21. The order can be found here.

Well-Deserved Award Recipients (Past and Future)

By John R. Byrne

Sharing some news from the awards circuit. This past Tuesday, the American Jewish Committee presented its Learned Hand Award to attorney Bobby Gilbert. In addition to being an exceptional lawyer (and golfer), Bobby is a great person who has done so much for the Jewish community, both here in South Florida and abroad. Plus, he graduated from the best high school in the country, Miami Palmetto Senior High. Several of our state and federal judges were there to celebrate Bobby. 

Next up, on May 28, 2026, Transition will honor federal judge Raag Singhal and state judge Marisa Tinkler Mendez at its Heroes Reception. Transition does important work helping people leaving the prison system reenter our community. 

Well-deserved recipients and causes.  

Vodou Assasination Expert?!

 By John R. Byrne

The big trial involving the assassination of the Haitian president is winding down. Closing arguments could be next week. And this sounds like it's been an interesting one. Just this week, the defense attempted to call a Vodou expert. Yes, a Vodou expert. The theory was apparently that the manner in which President Moise's body was treated after being murdered (both his arms were broken and his face "was destroyed") suggested something more or different than a simple assassination for pay.  

But Judge Becerra wasn't going for it. “I find it curious that a Vodou priest would be able to take the stand and say that he is well-versed in Vodou assassinations, which appears to me to be something, on its face, impossible because it’s not something that that religion condones."

I guess we'll never find out what the hourly rate of a Vodou expert is.

The Herald recaps where things stand here. 

Increasing the Price of Admission to Federal Court

By John R. Byrne

Since 1996, for diversity cases, the price of admission to get your lawsuit into federal court has been $75,000-plus — i.e., the amount in controversy had to exceed $75,000.

It’s safe to say that a dollar doesn’t go as far today as it did back then. And, finally, it looks like Congress may do something about it. Last week, Rep. Laurel Lee introduced the Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Modernization Act. If passed, the Act will raise the amount in controversy from $75,000 to $500,000. To give you some context, $75k in 1996 is roughly equivalent to $158k today, so this is more than just an inflation adjustment.

The reason for the increase? Our federal courts are slammed. Since 1990, federal filings have increased by 30% while the number of authorized district court judgeships has grown by only 4%. Legislation creating more judgeships has stalled out because of political bickering, so this looks like an alternative path to addressing the federal caseload.

This is long overdue. But the Act needs a cooler name. How about the “Don’t Make a Federal Case Out of It” Act?

You can read the press release for the Act here. 

Roy Moore's $8.2 Million Verdict Goes Poof at the Eleventh Circuit

By John R. Byrne

Do you remember Roy Moore? He was the Republican nominee in the special election to fill the Alabama Senate seat Jeff Sessions vacated when he became Attorney General. You may also remember the wave of news coverage reporting allegations that several women had accused Moore of inappropriate sexual conduct when they were young.

Moore later sued a political action committee (Senate Majority PAC) over a political ad that quoted and juxtaposed some of those reports. A jury sided with Moore, finding the ad defamatory and awarding him $8.2 million in compensatory damages.

But Moore will not be collecting a penny. In an opinion issued Friday, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court should have granted judgment as a matter of law to Senate Majority PAC. The issue was not simply whether the ad could be read to imply something defamatory (the Court said it could). The problem for Moore was that, because he was a public figure, he had to prove that the PAC acted with “actual malice." The court found the evidence lacking on that front, emphasizing, among other things, that the ad quoted and cited existing news reports and that the PAC had a fact-checking process before publication.

It's just the latest case applying the NY Times v. Sullivan standard, a standard that's come under fire recently from judges in our circuit (both district and appellate). The panel in the case again acknowledged the criticism of the Sullivan standard in a footnote, writing that "unless and until the Supreme Court decides to revisit the actual malice standard, we must continue to apply it."

You can read the opinion here.