NATHAN ROBERTS; FREEDOM TRUCK DISPATCH, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY; PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; CIRCULAR BOARD INC., originally named as Circular Board, LLC - Articles

All Content

NATHAN ROBERTS; FREEDOM TRUCK DISPATCH, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY; PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; CIRCULAR BOARD INC., originally named as Circular Board, LLC

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 19, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Jonathan F. Mitchell, MITCHELL LAW PLLC, Austin, Texas, Gene P. Hamilton, Nicholas R. Barry, AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., Joseph P. Ashbrook, Julie E. Byrne, Benjamin M. Flowers, ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE FLOWERS LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON RESPONSE: Stephanie Schuster, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Cameron T. Norris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, Mathura J. Sridharan, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. Judge Boggs would grant the petition for panel rehearing for the reasons stated in his dissent to the court’s opinion of February 24, 2026. The petition was also circulated to the full court.* Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Therefore, the petition is denied.

Attachments: