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.

A federal judge in California has ruled for Anthropic in its challenge to the Pentagon’s decision to designate the AI company as a supply-chain risk, concluding the government’s action was unlawful and effectively preventing the blacklisting from taking hold. The dispute puts a spotlight on one of the most consequential fault lines in modern procurement law: how far the government can go in invoking national-security concerns to cut off a contractor — or potential contractor — from federal business.

At the center of the case is the Defense Department’s asserted authority to restrict access to the federal marketplace based on perceived risk.

A federal judge in California has sided with the federal government in a closely watched fight over the Santa Ynez pipeline system, rejecting the state’s attempt to block an order requiring Sable Offshore to keep the system operating under the Defense Production Act. The decision gives the Trump administration an early win in a dispute that sits at the intersection of emergency federal power, energy infrastructure, and state environmental oversight.

At the center of the controversy is whether California regulators can effectively countermand a federal directive issued in the name of energy security.

A federal appeals court has blocked above-ground construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed $400 million White House ballroom, preserving a preliminary injunction that prevents the project from moving forward while the administration seeks further review. The decision puts a high-profile spotlight on a basic constitutional question: whether the executive branch can unilaterally authorize a major structural change to the White House complex, or whether Congress must expressly approve it.

The dispute, brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has quickly become more than a fight over one building project.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00070, bringing the inter partes review to its merits-stage conclusion and giving practitioners another look at how the Board is applying patentability standards in contested post-grant proceedings. View full case on Docket Alarm

Because a Final Written Decision is the PTAB’s definitive resolution of the challenged claims and grounds that were instituted, the opinion matters well beyond the immediate dispute.

A federal judge has reportedly voided a settlement involving the IRS and former President Donald Trump, a ruling that could have consequences well beyond the parties to the agreement. At a high level, the decision appears to turn on whether the settlement was lawfully structured and whether the government actors involved had the authority to bind the IRS in the manner they did.

That makes this more than a political headline.

KalshiEX LLC has filed a motion for injunction in the Second Circuit, a notable appellate move that signals the company is seeking immediate relief while its appeal proceeds.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s July 14, 2026 institution decision in IPR2026-00276 is a reminder of the relatively modest—but still meaningful—threshold a petitioner must meet to get an inter partes review off the ground. In granting institution, the Board concluded that the petition established a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, clearing the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

At the institution stage, the PTAB is not issuing a final merits ruling.

The Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling, siding with President Donald Trump in a dispute over the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and sharply expanding presidential removal authority over independent agencies. In doing so, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long been understood to shield FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, is likely to become a cornerstone decision in the Court’s modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence.

In one of the most closely watched separation-of-powers developments of the Supreme Court’s recent term, the Court declined—for now—to let President Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling that the Federal Reserve may occupy a different constitutional space than other independent agencies. The move stands out all the more because the Court’s broader rulings this term generally expanded presidential authority to remove executive officials.

The litigation is unfolding through multiple levels of the federal courts, including Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Applicant v. Lisa D. Cook, Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al. at the Supreme Court and Lisa Cook v. Donald Trump, et al in the D.C. Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed federal regulators two important victories, preserving enforcement tools that many companies had hoped the justices might narrow. In one decision, the Court ruled for the Federal Communications Commission in its dispute with ATT and Verizon over agency-imposed fines. In the other, the Court unanimously sided with the Securities and Exchange Commission, affirming the agency’s ability to seek broad disgorgement in enforcement actions involving investor fraud.

Taken together, the rulings stand out because they cut against the recent trend of heightened judicial skepticism toward administrative agencies.