Second Camp Lejeune Trial: Judge Carries Mousser Science Into Fancher Kidney Cancer Case Set for Nov. 9

The second Camp Lejeune trial, Marine Corps veteran David Fancher's kidney cancer case against the United States, is set to open on Monday, November 9, 2026, and Judge Terrence W. Boyle has ruled that the scientific testimony and exhibits from the first trial, Mousser v. United States, can be used in it. That means the general science on the base's contaminated water will not be tried a second time, even though the court has not yet decided the first case and the two sides are still arguing over when their post-trial findings in Mousser are due.

The order, reported by Public Radio East on November 4, is a procedural ruling, not a decision on the merits. It does not say the water caused Fancher's cancer, and it does not tell anyone how Judge Boyle will rule in Mousser. What it does is turn two separate bench trials into something closer to a single evidentiary record on the core scientific question, with only the individual pieces of each Marine's case left to be proved separately. For the roughly 408,000 administrative claimants and several thousand lawsuits waiting behind the 25 Track 1 Trial Plaintiffs, that change in structure may matter more than any single finding.

This article explains when the second Camp Lejeune trial starts and who the plaintiff is, what the carryover ruling covers, how federal courts usually handle evidence from an earlier trial, what Fancher must still prove, why the Justice Department wants until December 4 for its Mousser findings, when a first ruling could arrive, and how the two kidney cancer cases fit into the push for a global settlement.

When is the second Camp Lejeune trial?

The second Camp Lejeune trial is scheduled to begin on November 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, before Judge Terrence W. Boyle, sitting without a jury. Public Radio East and WFDD both reported the November 9 date in coverage published on November 3 and November 4.

Some earlier reporting, and several law firm pages that have not been updated, list November 16. Those pages reflect an older schedule from September, under which the two kidney cancer cases were spaced a week apart later in the fall. The first trial was later held from October 26 to October 28 in Elizabeth City, and the most recent reports consistently give November 9 for the second. Practitioners should rely on the docket, but every report published after the first trial closed uses the November 9 date.

Like the first, the second trial is a bench trial. In February 2024 the Eastern District's judges held that the Camp Lejeune Justice Act does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity from jury trials, so the judge decides both liability and damages. There will be no jury selection on November 9, and there will be no verdict read in open court at the end. The decision will come later, in writing, as findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

Who is the plaintiff in the second Camp Lejeune trial?

The plaintiff in the second Camp Lejeune trial is David Fancher, a Marine Corps veteran who, like Frank Mousser, developed kidney cancer after being stationed at Camp Lejeune and alleges that drinking the base's contaminated water caused it. His case, Fancher v. United States, is one of the five kidney cancer cases among the 25 Track 1 trial plaintiffs.

Public reporting on Fancher himself is thin. The November 3 and November 4 reports identify him as a Marine Corps veteran with kidney cancer, but they do not give his years at the base, the subtype of his cancer, the treatment he has received, or the damages his lawyers are seeking. Those details will come out at trial. This article does not guess at them.

What is known is that Fancher falls into the same disease track as Mousser and is being tried by the same judge, two weeks after the first case closed. That pairing is deliberate. Two kidney cancer decisions from one judge on a shared scientific record give both sides a far firmer basis for valuing the kidney cancer tier of any Settlement Matrix than one decision could. If the two Marines differ on the facts the government has pressed hardest, such as time on the base and the type of kidney cancer, the pair of decisions will also show how much those differences matter.

What did Judge Boyle rule about evidence from the Mousser trial?

Judge Boyle ruled that the scientific evidence presented during the Mousser trial can be used in Fancher, including the testimony and exhibits on the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune and its potential health effects, according to Public Radio East's November 4 report. The parties may still introduce evidence specific to Fancher's exposure, illness and damages.

The practical effect, as the report put it, is that the lawyers will not have to repeat much of the scientific testimony from the previous week. In a toxic exposure case, that testimony is the bulk of the trial. It covers how the Hadnot Point and Tarawa Terrace water systems were contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), benzene and vinyl chloride; how the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) modeled historical concentrations; and what the epidemiology says about those chemicals and kidney cancer.

The ruling divides each case into two layers.

Layer	What it covers	Treatment in Fancher
Shared science	Contamination history of the base water systems; ATSDR water modeling; toxicology of TCE and related solvents; epidemiology of kidney cancer, including the Camp Pendleton comparison study and ATSDR health studies	Testimony and exhibits from Mousser may be used; need not be repeated
Individual exposure	Fancher's dates and places at the base, where he lived and worked, how much water he likely drank	Must be proved with Fancher-specific evidence
Individual illness	Fancher's diagnosis, its subtype, treatment and prognosis	Must be proved with Fancher-specific evidence
Damages	Medical costs, lost earning capacity, non-economic harm, and statutory offsets for federal benefits	Must be proved with Fancher-specific evidence

The order is the court's latest move to speed up a docket that moved slowly for years. It fits the way the first trial ran. The parties had predicted a Track 1 trial would take anywhere from two or three days to about two weeks; Mousser took three. A second trial that starts with the science already in the record could be shorter still.

What the reports do not say is just as important. They do not say whether the order came on motion, by agreement, or on the court's own initiative, and they do not say whether the government objected. They do not say whether the carryover is limited to expert testimony or also reaches fact witnesses such as former base officials. And they do not say whether either side may call one of the Mousser experts again for supplemental testimony tied to Fancher's facts. Each of those details affects how the record will look on appeal, and each should be checked against the order itself.

Can evidence from one trial be used in another trial?

Yes, evidence from one trial can be used in another in federal court, but usually only through a specific procedural route, and courts take care that the party against whom it is used had a full and fair chance to test it. The Fancher order is unusual in scale more than in kind: the same judge, the same defendant, and the same lawyers are moving from one bench trial to the next on the same scientific question.

There are several routes a court can use. Public reports have not said which one Judge Boyle relied on, so the following is an analysis of the available tools, not a description of the order.

Consolidation for common issues. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court, when actions "involve a common question of law or fact," to join them "for hearing or trial" on any or all matters at issue, to consolidate them, or to issue any other order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Courts use it to hear common evidence once and apply it to several cases. General Causation, whether TCE and related chemicals at Camp Lejeune exposure levels can cause kidney cancer, is the textbook common question in a Mass Tort. A ruling that the Mousser science applies in Fancher works much like a common-issues consolidation done in sequence instead of at the same time.

Stipulation. Parties often agree that testimony from a prior proceeding may be received, to save expense or to avoid recalling the same experts. The Justice Department has argued for speed in some respects and caution in others, so whether it agreed or objected is not a minor detail.

Former testimony under the hearsay rules. Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) admits testimony given at an earlier trial or hearing if the witness is unavailable and the party against whom it is offered had "an opportunity and similar motive to develop it" by direct, cross or redirect examination. The "similar motive" requirement is plainly met here: the government cross-examined the plaintiffs' experts in Mousser on the same causation question it will contest in Fancher. The unavailability requirement, though, usually is not met, because the experts can be recalled. That is why courts managing repeat trials tend to rely on case management power and party agreement instead of this hearsay exception.

Depositions from an earlier action. Rule 32(a)(8) allows a deposition taken in an earlier action to be used in a later one involving the same subject matter between the same parties or their representatives. Deposition designations are routine in Camp Lejeune pretrial practice, but this rule covers depositions, not live trial testimony.

The bench-trial factor. Many of the risks that make courts wary of carrying evidence forward are jury risks: confusion, unfair prejudice, and a fact-finder who cannot tell which evidence applies to which party. With no jury, the same judge who heard the experts in October will weigh their testimony again in November. The Fourth Circuit will review his findings of fact for clear error under Rule 52(a)(6). That deference rests partly on the trial judge's chance to judge witness credibility, and it applies with full force when the judge heard the witnesses live in the earlier trial.

None of this means the order is free of risk. Linking the records ties the two outcomes together. If an appellate court later finds error in how the Mousser scientific evidence was admitted or weighed, the same error could appear in Fancher. Both sides know that. It gives each a reason to preserve objections carefully, and it means any appeal will likely raise the same legal questions in both cases.

What does Fancher still have to prove?

Fancher must still prove, with evidence specific to him, that he was exposed to the contaminated water, that he has the illness he claims, that the exposure is at least as likely as not to have caused it, and what damages he suffered after statutory offsets. The carryover order shortens the trial. It does not shrink the plaintiff's burden.

The governing standard comes from Section 804(c) of the Honoring our PACT Act. A plaintiff must produce evidence showing that the relationship between exposure to Camp Lejeune water and the harm is sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship is "at least as likely as not." That equipoise standard is easier to meet than the more-likely-than-not test in ordinary tort law. Even so, the Eastern District has held that it still requires admissible expert testimony on both General Causation and Specific Causation, and that Rule 702 applies in full.

The government's attacks in Mousser show where Fancher will be contested.

Time on the base and dose. Roll Call reported that the government's motion in Mousser said he "spent significant time away from Camp Lejeune" during his 1982 to 1986 assignment. The same argument can be made in Fancher in whatever form his service record allows. In October the Justice Department also attacked the use of the ATSDR historical water models to estimate one person's intake, arguing that the models describe population exposure and cannot show how much one Marine drank. If those arguments were part of the general-science record in Mousser, they carry over. How they apply to Fancher's own facts does not.

Diagnosis. In Mousser the government drew a line between upper tract urothelial carcinoma, which starts in the lining of the renal pelvis or ureter, and renal cell carcinoma, the more common cancer of the kidney tissue itself. It argued that the TCE evidence is strongest for renal cell carcinoma. Whether Fancher's cancer falls on the same side of that line as Mousser's has not been reported. If it falls on the other side, the shared scientific record will cut differently in the two cases.

Epidemiology as applied. Public Radio East reported that the government relies on a large federal study comparing people who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune with an unexposed group at Camp Pendleton, which did not find a statistically significant increase in kidney cancer incidence, while other ATSDR research found associations between the base's contaminants and kidney cancer. That conflict is now part of the shared record. How the judge resolves it in Mousser will largely decide it for Fancher too.

Damages and offsets. Mousser's lawyers sought nearly $1.2 million in economic damages, including $802,874 for future care and $305,101 for lost earning potential, plus non-economic damages, according to Roll Call. The government argued that his prognosis is "excellent" and that any award should be reduced by future VA, Medicare, TRICARE and disability benefits. Fancher's damages will be built from his own life-care plan and benefit history, and the offset fight will be repeated in full, because it depends on the individual. The statute bars Punitive Damages in every Camp Lejeune case.

Issue	Mousser v. United States	Fancher v. United States
Disease track	Kidney cancer (Track 1)	Kidney cancer (Track 1)
Judge	Terrence W. Boyle	Terrence W. Boyle
Format	Bench trial, Elizabeth City	Bench trial
Trial dates	October 26 to 28, 2026	Scheduled to begin November 9, 2026
Service at base	1982 to 1986, per reporting	Not publicly reported
Diagnosis subtype	Contested: government says urothelial, not renal cell	Not publicly reported
General science record	Presented live	Carried over from Mousser
Economic damages sought	Nearly $1.2 million, per Roll Call	Not publicly reported
Status	Under advisement; post-trial schedule disputed	Pretrial

Why is the Justice Department asking for more time after the Mousser trial?

The Justice Department asked to file its post-trial findings in Mousser by December 4, nearly a month later than the November 6 date Mousser's attorneys proposed, and it cited its preparation for the Fancher trial as one reason, according to WFDD's November 3 report. Mousser's lawyers argued that a prompt resolution would serve the interests of justice and the public.

Post-trial submissions in a bench trial are not a formality. Each side files proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, setting out its reading of the evidence, citing the transcript and exhibits, and applying the statute. Judges often adopt large parts of the better-supported submission, with edits. Under Rule 52(a)(1), the court must "find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately," and the parties' proposals are the raw material for that work. In a case with competing epidemiology, disputed dose estimates, a contested diagnosis and a statutory offset question, the drafting is heavy.

The scheduling dispute has a structure worth noting. The government's own rationale, that its lawyers are preparing for Fancher, shows how closely linked the two cases now are. The same trial team that would write the Mousser findings is preparing to cross-examine Fancher's witnesses. The plaintiffs' answer is that the government chose to try these cases back to back, and that the claimant pool is elderly and ill. That argument has carried weight with this court before.

Proposed deadline	Proposed by	Stated rationale	Likely consequence
November 6, 2026	Mousser's attorneys	Prompt resolution serves justice and the public interest	Findings filed before Fancher opens; the judge could draft the Mousser decision during or right after the second trial
December 4, 2026	Justice Department	More time needed, including because of Fancher trial preparation	Findings filed after Fancher ends; the two decisions could be drafted close together, or Mousser could come first by only a few weeks
Another date	Court	Judge Boyle may adopt either proposal or set his own schedule	Unknown; nothing in the reports said he had ruled as of November 4

The court has broad discretion here. No rule sets a deadline for proposed findings, and requests for more time are judged under the ordinary good-cause standard of Rule 6(b). Judge Boyle could split the difference, set a short window for the plaintiff and a longer one for the government, or order joint submissions after Fancher that address both cases. Given the carryover order, that last option would not be surprising, because both cases now share a scientific record.

When will there be a ruling in the first Camp Lejeune trial?

There is no set date for a ruling in the first Camp Lejeune trial, and none can come until the court receives post-trial findings, which the parties have proposed filing on November 6 or December 4. Even after the filings are in, the reports note there is no established date for a decision.

The realistic range follows from the schedule. If the court adopts the plaintiffs' November 6 date, a Mousser decision could come in late November or December, possibly while Fancher is being tried or briefed. If it adopts the government's December 4 date, a decision before the end of the year would require fast drafting. Early 2027 becomes the more natural window. Neither scenario is assured. A judge with two linked kidney cancer cases may prefer to decide them close together, so that the shared science is resolved once and applied consistently.

Once a judgment is entered, the post-trial clock runs under the federal rules. A motion to amend findings under Rule 52(b), or for a new trial under Rule 59, is due within 28 days. Because the United States is a party, a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit is due within 60 days under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). That timeline is one reason both sides keep talking about a negotiated framework. A final appellate answer on the legal questions in Mousser, such as how to apply the "at least as likely as not" standard, whether ATSDR models can support an individual dose opinion, and whether future benefits can be offset, is unlikely before late 2027.

The court has another option. Rule 52(c) allows judgment on partial findings once a party has been fully heard on an issue. A docket entry on such a motion appeared on October 27, during the Mousser trial, but its outcome has not been reported. If that motion remains pending, it will be resolved as part of the decision.

Will the second Camp Lejeune trial be shorter than the first?

The second Camp Lejeune trial is likely to be shorter than the first, because the general scientific evidence, usually the longest part of a toxic tort trial, is being carried over from Mousser instead of being presented again. How much shorter depends on how much of Fancher's case turns on facts specific to him.

The first trial took three days, from Monday, October 26 to Wednesday, October 28. That was already at the low end of the parties' estimates, and the explanation was partly that the judge knew the science from years of pretrial motions on causation, Rule 702 and offsets. With the Mousser record available, the plaintiff's opening evidence in Fancher can focus on his service history, his medical records, his treating physicians, a specific-causation expert who ties the shared science to his case, and a damages presentation. The government's case can focus on the same points from the other side.

Three factors could stretch the trial back out:

• A different diagnosis profile. If Fancher's cancer type, latency or other risk factors differ in ways that make the shared epidemiology a poor fit, the experts may need to explain how the general record applies, which takes live testimony.
• Supplemental expert testimony. If either side is allowed to recall a Mousser expert for Fancher-specific opinions, those witnesses will be back on the stand, though for less time.
• Offset evidence. If Fancher has a significant VA disability rating, VA-provided care, Medicare or TRICARE coverage, the government's burden under the court's June 2026 offset ruling to prove which benefits relate to the water-caused condition could take real trial time.

Faster trials matter beyond these two cases. The court has 25 Track 1 plaintiffs across five diseases, and several judges hearing them. A model in which shared science is tried once per disease and individual cases follow on shortened records could raise the number of Track 1 judgments well beyond what the original schedule implied.

How the second Camp Lejeune trial fits the Track 1 plan

The second Camp Lejeune trial is the second of five kidney cancer trials in Track 1, the first group of cases the Eastern District chose for trial, which covers 25 plaintiffs across kidney cancer, bladder cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Parkinson's disease. Judge Boyle has the kidney cancer cases. The leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases have been assigned to Judge James C. Dever III.

Track 1 plaintiffs accepted a significant trade-off when they were selected in 2024: they gave up claims for diseases outside their track so that each trial would be a single-disease case. As this newsroom has explained, the trials are therefore not a sample of the full claimant pool in the formal sense of a Bellwether Trial with agreed extrapolation. Each produces an individual judgment. Their influence on everyone else works through information, and through precedent if the cases are appealed.

The carryover order changes how that information is produced. Without it, each kidney cancer trial would generate its own record on the science, and the judge could in principle reach different conclusions on general causation in different cases, depending on how the experts performed. With it, the general-causation record for kidney cancer is being built once. In effect, the individual trials become tests of how individual facts change the outcome when the science is held constant.

That raises a question for the other disease tracks. If the carryover model works for kidney cancer, a party in a leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma trial before Judge Dever may ask for the same treatment after the first trial in that track. Whether Judge Dever would follow Judge Boyle's approach is an open question. The judges have coordinated closely on common legal rulings, including causation, Rule 702 and offsets, but trial management is left to each judge.

Date	Event
August 10, 2022	Camp Lejeune Justice Act signed as Section 804 of the Honoring our PACT Act
February 2024	Eastern District holds there is no jury-trial right against the United States under the Act
July 2024	25 Track 1 trial plaintiffs selected across five diseases
August 10, 2024	Window to file administrative claims closes
June 2026	Orders on causation, Rule 702 and offsets; June 30 order sets an October 30 global settlement target
September 2026	Earlier trial schedule reported, with the kidney cancer trials set for November
October 23, 2026	Government Lone Pine memorandum; Plaintiffs' Leadership Group 25-condition census motion
October 26 to 28, 2026	Mousser bench trial in Elizabeth City
October 30, 2026	Global settlement target passes; no deal announced
November 3, 2026	Report of dispute over November 6 vs. December 4 post-trial findings deadline
November 4, 2026	Report of Judge Boyle's order letting Mousser evidence be used in Fancher
November 9, 2026	Second Camp Lejeune trial, Fancher, scheduled to begin
December 4, 2026	Government's proposed date for Mousser post-trial findings

How do the Camp Lejeune trials affect a global settlement?

The Camp Lejeune trials affect a global settlement by giving both sides judicial findings to price claims against, and the carryover order makes those findings more consistent, which should make them more useful at the negotiating table. They do not, by themselves, pay anyone.

The court's June 30, 2026 order told the Justice Department and the Plaintiffs' Leadership Group to use their best efforts to reach a global framework by October 30 and to meet weekly with court-appointed settlement masters. That target passed with no announcement. Coverage before the deadline described significant disagreements over the scope of a deal and the evidence claimants would have to provide. The government wants a Lone Pine Order requiring each plaintiff to show exposure, diagnosis and causation, and it says more than three-quarters of the claims it has reviewed lack enough documentation. The plaintiffs want a court-ordered Census Registry across 25 conditions to establish who has which disease. Neither motion had been decided as of the most recent reports.

The trial results feed into that standoff in three ways.

Valuation. The government's Elective Option pays Tier 1 kidney cancer claimants a fixed amount between $150,000 and $450,000, depending on time at the base, without requiring proof of causation and without offsets for VA disability benefits. Two kidney cancer judgments on a shared record will show whether litigating beats that schedule once offsets and fees are counted. Federal Tort Claims Act fee limits, which the Justice Department says apply, cap fees at 20 percent for administrative settlements and 25 percent for litigated recoveries.

Documentation. Each trial shows, in concrete terms, what a claimant has to produce to win. If Fancher prevails with a record that most claimants could assemble, that undercuts the government's case for a strict Lone Pine screen. If he loses on individual exposure or diagnosis, it strengthens the argument that documentation, not science, is what separates claims.

Pace. The carryover order shows the court is willing to restructure trials to produce results faster. A credible prospect of many Track 1 judgments within months, instead of years, raises the cost of delay for the government and the cost of holding out for plaintiffs whose claims would not survive a documentation screen.

The government's payout record frames the stakes. The Justice Department reports more than $1.1 billion in settlement offers and more than $879 million paid as of September 18, 2026, overwhelmingly through the Elective Option. That is a small fraction of an inventory of roughly 408,000 administrative claims and several thousand lawsuits. Politics hangs over this as well. On October 20 President Trump said at a Greenville rally that the Justice Department would settle all remaining legitimate claims if Republicans kept control of Congress. The November 3 midterms have now been held. Nothing in the court's schedule depends on the results, but the government's negotiating posture in the coming weeks is a variable both sides are watching.

What the second Camp Lejeune trial means for practitioners

For claimants' counsel. The carryover order moves the fight from the science to the file. When general causation is tried once, the cases that do well will be those with clean proof of time on the base, clear medical documentation of diagnosis and subtype, a treating-physician narrative, and a life-care plan built to survive a prognosis attack. Firms with kidney cancer inventories should be matching their clients against the Mousser and Fancher fact patterns now, especially on the urothelial versus renal cell carcinoma distinction and on time away from the base.

For the Plaintiffs' Leadership Group. A shared record helps leadership argue that a court-supervised Census Registry, not a Lone Pine Order, is the efficient next step, because the science will already be decided disease by disease. It also raises the stakes of each general-causation presentation: a weak expert showing in the first trial of a disease now affects every later trial in that disease, not just one.

For the Justice Department. The government gains efficiency but loses the chance to retry the science against new witnesses or with refined cross-examination. Its strongest remaining tools are individual: dose from time away, diagnosis subtype, prognosis, and offsets. The scheduling request it made, citing Fancher preparation, shows the cost of the court's pace on the defense side, and the court's answer will show how much patience it has for that argument.

For lien administrators and claims administrators. Offsets are tried individually even when the science is shared. Every Camp Lejeune trial award will be reduced by proven related federal benefits before any Medical Lien is resolved. Administrators modeling net recoveries need condition-specific benefit histories, not totals, for each claimant.

For litigation funders. Funders priced on a 2026 resolution face a longer horizon, but the carryover model cuts the time needed to produce disease-level information. Any Third-Party Litigation Funding position tied to Camp Lejeune kidney cancer inventories should be revalued once the first two decisions come in. Positions in other disease tracks should watch whether the model spreads.

For the court. The order shows a court managing a mass docket of individual cases with mass-tort tools: shared records, short trials, and parallel pressure on settlement. The next signals will be the post-trial schedule in Mousser, the length of the Fancher trial, and whether the first written decision comes before or after the second trial ends.

FAQ

When is the second Camp Lejeune trial?

The second Camp Lejeune trial, Fancher v. United States, is scheduled to begin on November 9, 2026, as a bench trial before Judge Terrence W. Boyle in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Some older pages list November 16, but every report published after the first trial closed gives November 9.

Who is the plaintiff in the second Camp Lejeune trial?

The plaintiff is David Fancher, a Marine Corps veteran who developed kidney cancer after being stationed at Camp Lejeune and alleges the base's contaminated drinking water caused it. His years at the base and the type of kidney cancer have not been publicly reported.

What did Judge Boyle rule about evidence from the Mousser trial?

Judge Boyle ruled that the scientific testimony and exhibits from the first trial, Mousser v. United States, can be used in Fancher, so the general science on the contaminated water need not be presented again. Both sides can still offer evidence specific to Fancher's exposure, illness and damages.

Can evidence from one trial be used in another trial?

Yes, federal courts can allow it through tools such as common-issue consolidation under Rule 42(a), a party stipulation, deposition rules, or, when a witness is unavailable, the former-testimony exception in Evidence Rule 804(b)(1). Public reports have not identified which basis Judge Boyle relied on.

Why is the Justice Department asking for more time after the Mousser trial?

The Justice Department asked to file its Mousser post-trial findings by December 4 instead of November 6, citing its preparation for the Fancher trial among other reasons. Mousser's attorneys argued that a prompt resolution serves the interests of justice and the public.

When will there be a ruling in the first Camp Lejeune trial?

No ruling date has been set in Mousser, and a decision cannot come until post-trial findings are filed, on November 6, December 4, or another date the court chooses. A decision in late 2026 or early 2027 is plausible, but nothing has been announced.