United States Court of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit

Oral Arguments — January 28, 2026

University of Miami School of Law

Shalala Center, 1330 Miller Dr.

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Before HONS. JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

9 a.m.

United States v. Terrance Louis, Appellant

  • This appeal centers on whether the warrantless search of Louis's home was constitutional while he was detained for a conditional release violation hearing, and whether he qualifies as an armed career criminal, with disputes over proof of his prior convictions, whether they occurred on different occasions, and whether Florida cocaine offenses match the federal definition under ACCA.

Steven Hernandez, et al., Appellants v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, et al.

  • The appeal centers on whether the district court correctly handled claims under the dormant Commerce Clause, including both facial and practical-effect discrimination in Florida’s Bar Admission Rule 2-23.4. The parties dispute whether the rule unfairly burdens out-of-state attorneys with higher fees and whether the statistical evidence supports such a claim. The appeal also raises questions about immunity—whether the Florida Board of Bar Examiners is protected by the Eleventh Amendment and whether its Executive Director is entitled to qualified immunity for monetary claims.

(15-minute recess)

10:15 a.m.

Lil’ Joe Records, Inc., Appellant v. Christopher Wong Won, Jr., et al.

  • This copyright case has drawn media attention and focuses on whether the district court correctly resolved disputes over 2 Live Crew’s copyright termination rights. The parties disagree on whether these rights were part of the bankruptcy estate or could be exercised under 17 U.S.C. § 203, and whether the jury properly found that the 1990 Agreement did not transfer copyrights the artists never owned. The appeal also questions whether the artists were properly considered independent copyright holders rather than employees of the record label for the works at issue, and whether the jury’s verdict upholding their termination rights should stand.

Hammer Brand, LLC v. Voro, Inc., et al., Appellants

  • The appeal centers on whether summary judgment was appropriate on trademark infringement, with disputes over the admissibility of confusion evidence, whether material facts remain for a jury, and how similar the products actually are.

11:30 a.m.

Q & A with the Hon. Adalberto Jordan, moderated by Professor Diana Zamora

RSVP for the Oral Arguments here.

RSVP for the Judicial Clerkship Panel on January 29 or former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement’s talk on January 30 here.