The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a district court decision in *Christine Gibbons v. Betty Ann Gibbs*, rejecting an appeal that challenged actions by Lynchburg Electoral Board officials. The unanimous three-judge panel issued its opinion Feb. 11, 2026, after oral arguments held in September 2025.
Judge Toby Heytens wrote the opinion for the court, with Circuit Judges Barbara Milano Keenan Thacker and A. Marvin Quattlebaum joining. The decision affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Lynchburg, where District Judge Robert S. Ballou presided over the original case.
Christine Gibbons filed suit against Betty Ann Gibbs, Secretary of the Lynchburg Electoral Board, and Steven Troxel, Vice Chair of the Lynchburg Electoral Board. The lawsuit named both defendants in their official capacities as board members and in their personal capacities, indicating claims that extended beyond their governmental roles.
The Fourth Circuit's decision centered on procedural issues regarding evidence preservation and district court discretion. Judge Heytens emphasized a fundamental rule of appellate procedure: when a district court makes evidentiary rulings about what evidence will be admitted or excluded, parties must formally proffer the evidence they wish to present to preserve their right to appellate review.
"When a district court rules that certain types of evidence will be admitted but others will not, parties must proffer the evidence they wish to present to preserve appellate review," Heytens wrote in the opinion. "That rule does not vanish simply because a litigant predicts an adverse party will object to the evidence and the objection will be sustained."
The court found that Gibbons largely failed to make proper proffers of the evidence she intended to present at trial, resulting in forfeiture of appellate review on those issues. This procedural failure proved fatal to key aspects of her appeal.
Beyond the evidence preservation issue, the Fourth Circuit examined the district court's evidentiary rulings and jury selection process. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in either area, determining that Judge Ballou acted within proper judicial bounds.
The opinion noted this case had come before the Fourth Circuit previously, stating "This case—which is before us a second time" before the excerpt cuts off. This suggests prior appellate proceedings or remands, though the specific nature of the earlier appeal was not detailed in the available portion of the opinion.
Stephen B. Pershing of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch in Washington, D.C., represented Gibbons as appellant. The electoral board officials were represented by Blaire Hawkins O'Brien and David P. Corrigan of Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman in Richmond, Virginia.
The case originated in federal court under docket number 6:23-cv-00035-RSB-CKM, indicating it was filed in 2023. The nature of Gibbons' underlying claims against the electoral board officials was not specified in the available portions of the appellate opinion, though the involvement of both official and personal capacity claims suggests potential civil rights or constitutional violations were alleged.
Electoral board disputes often involve allegations of voting rights violations, election administration misconduct, or constitutional due process claims. The fact that Gibbons sued board members in both their official and personal capacities indicates she likely sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The Fourth Circuit's emphasis on procedural requirements highlights the importance of proper evidence preservation in federal litigation. Courts require parties to make formal proffers of excluded evidence to create an adequate record for appellate review. This ensures appeals courts have sufficient information to evaluate whether trial courts erred in their evidentiary decisions.
The procedural nature of the Fourth Circuit's ruling means the decision primarily establishes precedent about evidence preservation requirements rather than addressing the underlying merits of electoral administration law. However, the affirmance represents a complete victory for the Lynchburg Electoral Board officials.
The timing of the decision, coming in early 2026, places it within ongoing national discussions about election administration and electoral board authority. While the specific legal issues in *Gibbons* remain unclear from the available opinion excerpt, the case adds to the body of federal precedent governing challenges to local election officials.
The published nature of the opinion means it will serve as binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The decision reinforces procedural requirements that attorneys must follow when preserving evidence issues for appeal in federal court.
For Gibbons, the affirmance represents the end of her federal court challenge unless she seeks further review from the Supreme Court, though such petitions face long odds for acceptance. The electoral board officials can now move forward without the cloud of federal litigation.