The U.S. Supreme Court issued a slip opinion on October 14 in FCC v. Brown, No. 26A476, marking one of the Court’s first merits-related actions of the new Term and putting federal agency litigation squarely back in focus.

A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Trump administration to stop tree-cutting and related work at East Potomac Golf Course through October 26, extending an earlier temporary pause and turning a local land-use fight into a closely watched federal court dispute.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is notable not only for the practical effect—halting work at a historic public golf course—but also for the court’s tone.

A federal judge has blocked the U.S. Department of Justice from carrying out an effort to obtain state voter-registration rolls and compare them against a federal immigration database, ruling that the initiative was unlawful. The decision marks a significant setback for a nationwide voting-enforcement strategy that states and voting-rights groups argued could lead to erroneous voter removals and place improper pressure on election officials to purge their rolls.

At the center of the dispute was the federal government’s attempt to use immigration data as a screening tool for voter eligibility.

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked border-wall and related infrastructure construction in the Big Bend region, handing environmental and local challengers an early procedural win in a closely watched dispute over the government’s use of statutory waiver authority.

The case centers on whether the Department of Homeland Security lawfully bypassed environmental, cultural, and archaeological protections in order to accelerate border-barrier work.

A federal appeals court in Boston heard arguments in a closely watched dispute over whether a district judge had the authority to order the restoration of more than $2.6 billion in research funding to Harvard after the Trump administration cut it off. The case places two recurring legal questions in sharp relief: how far the executive branch can go in withholding federal money, and how far courts can go in crafting remedies when they find that action unlawful.

At the center of the appeal is an order by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs restoring the funding, a remedy the administration argues exceeded the court’s power.

The U.S. Supreme Court opens its October 2026 term on Monday with a docket that is already drawing outsized attention from litigators, regulators, and in-house legal teams. The justices are expected to hear major disputes touching immigration detention, firearm restrictions, climate-liability claims, voting rules, and LGBT-rights issues—areas where even incremental doctrinal shifts can quickly reshape litigation strategy nationwide.

Although no merits rulings have been issued yet, the composition of the Court’s calendar is itself a major legal development.

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked the administration from moving forward with border-wall construction in the Big Bend region, handing challengers an important early win in a closely watched public-law dispute. Judge Kathleen Cardone concluded that the plaintiffs—who include landowners, businesses, and environmental advocates—were likely to succeed on at least one of their claims and would face irreparable harm if construction proceeded before the case could be fully heard.

That combination matters.

California and New York have opened a significant new front in the fight over federal energy policy, suing the Trump administration over plans to buy back offshore wind leases tied to already approved clean-energy development. The states contend the federal government is unlawfully attempting to unwind projects that cleared prior regulatory review, setting up a high-stakes clash over agency authority, administrative process, and the future of offshore wind investment.

At the center of the dispute is whether the federal government can effectively reverse course on issued offshore wind leases through buybacks or cancellations without complying with the legal constraints that govern agency decision-making.

California and New York have opened a significant new front in the legal fight over federal energy policy, suing the Trump administration over plans to buy back offshore wind leases. The states argue the federal government is acting unlawfully by attempting to unwind existing lease rights in a way that undercuts offshore wind development and disrupts long-term clean energy planning.

At its core, the dispute is about the limits of executive power over federal energy programs.

A federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the EPA’s attempt to terminate the Biden-era “Solar for All” program, a $7 billion grant initiative designed to expand residential solar access in underserved communities. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy ruled that the agency acted unlawfully in canceling grants that had already been obligated, concluding that Congress had clearly authorized the funding and intended the program to move forward.

The lawsuit, Rhode Island AFL-CIO et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, is notable not only because of the amount at stake, but also because it highlights a recurring separation-of-powers dispute: how far an executive agency can go in unwinding programs that Congress has funded and the government has already put into motion.

Judge McElroy’s decision appears to turn on a straightforward but powerful administrative-law principle.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dealt a notable setback to the Trump administration by blocking an effort to keep a Michigan coal-fired power plant operating under claimed emergency authority. In siding with a coalition of states and environmental groups, the court concluded there was no genuine emergency sufficient to justify extraordinary federal intervention.

At a high level, the dispute tested how far the executive branch can go in invoking emergency-based energy powers to override market, regulatory, or retirement decisions involving aging generation assets.

A coalition of labor unions has reached a settlement in principle with the Trump administration in California federal court over litigation challenging layoffs carried out at federal agencies during the 2025 government shutdown. While the final terms have not yet been detailed publicly, the agreement appears to pause what had become a closely watched dispute over how far the executive branch can go in reducing the federal workforce during a shutdown.

The case sits at the intersection of public-sector employment law and administrative law.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed rescinding its investment-adviser “pay-to-play” rule, a long-standing restriction that bars advisers from receiving compensation for advisory services from certain government clients for two years after making covered political contributions. If adopted, the change would mark a significant shift in how the agency regulates the intersection of campaign activity and public-sector investment business.

The existing rule has been a major compliance fixture for registered investment advisers, particularly those seeking or maintaining mandates from public pension plans, state treasurers, and other government entities.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and revive a federal mail-ballot restriction that a lower federal court had blocked ahead of the November midterm elections. The application places the dispute on the Court’s fast-track emergency docket, where timing often matters as much as the merits—especially in election cases unfolding close to voting deadlines.

At a high level, the administration is seeking to undo an order that prevented enforcement of a new federal rule governing mail ballots.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dealt a significant setback to the Pentagon’s effort to sideline Anthropic from federal use, ruling that the government’s actions were “illegal and baseless” and temporarily blocking parts of the administration’s campaign against the AI company.

While the full factual record will matter as the case proceeds, the court’s language is notable.