11th Circuit Issues Non-Precedential Ruling in Carlan v. Tegna Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit filed a document in the case of *James Thomas Carlan v. Tegna Inc.* on September 11, 2026, indicating an ongoing appellate proceeding designated as "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" and placed on the "Non-Argument Calendar."

This excerpt confirms the filing of Document 21-1, spanning 17 pages, in appellate case number 26-10758. The specific nature of the document, such as an order, a brief, or a judgment, is not detailed, nor is the ultimate outcome of the appeal. The designation "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" is a critical procedural detail, signifying that any decision rendered in this matter will not serve as binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit. Similarly, its placement on the "Non-Argument Calendar" suggests the court determined that oral arguments were not necessary, often due to the issues being straightforward or adequately addressed in the submitted briefs.

For practitioners, the "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" designation is paramount. It means that while the court's decision will resolve the dispute between James Thomas Carlan and Tegna Inc., its reasoning or holding cannot be cited as authoritative law in subsequent cases. This practice is common in federal appellate courts to manage caseloads and reserve precedential opinions for matters that establish new legal principles, alter existing law, or involve issues of significant public interest. The Eleventh Circuit, a federal appellate court, covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, and its published decisions are binding on district courts within its jurisdiction. The parties involved are James Thomas Carlan and Tegna Inc.

Attorneys practicing in the Eleventh Circuit must be acutely aware of the implications of non-precedential opinions. When conducting legal research or formulating arguments, practitioners should prioritize published opinions that carry precedential weight. While non-published opinions can offer insight into the court's thinking on similar factual patterns, they cannot be relied upon as binding authority. The outcome of this specific matter is not reported in the excerpt, but its non-precedential status means its impact on broader legal interpretation will be limited.