The U.S. Department of Justice has sued California election officials, seeking an order that would prevent the state from counting vote-by-mail ballots cast by voters the federal government identifies as “likely” noncitizens unless and until citizenship is confirmed. The case lands at the intersection of federal election enforcement, voter eligibility rules, and the states’ broad authority to administer elections.

At its core, the dispute appears to be about what evidentiary threshold is sufficient to interrupt the ordinary ballot-counting process.

The Justice Department has sued California election officials in a closely watched pre-election dispute over voter-roll maintenance and mail-ballot counting.

The Ninth Circuit has directed a lower court to preliminarily block California’s “No Vigilantes Act,” concluding the federal government is likely to succeed on its claim that the state law impermissibly regulates federal officers. The ruling is an important early win for the United States in a closely watched dispute over the limits of state power when legislating around federal immigration enforcement.

The statute would have required federal agents to display visible identification while carrying out their duties.

California’s approval of SB 574 is emerging as one of the most consequential legal-industry developments of the year, even without a same-day court ruling attached to it. The bill would place clear limits on how lawyers use generative AI in legal work, including restricting delegation of legal practice to AI tools, requiring verification of AI-generated material, and imposing disclosure-related constraints in court filings.

At a high level, the measure reflects a simple but increasingly urgent principle: lawyers can use AI, but they cannot outsource professional judgment to it.

California is on the verge of becoming one of the first states to directly regulate how generative AI may be used by attorneys and arbitrators in legal practice. A bill that cleared the state legislature now awaits action by Gov. Gavin Newsom, putting the legal industry on notice that AI governance is moving beyond ethics opinions and court standing orders into statute.

While courts and bar regulators around the country have already warned lawyers about AI-related risks — including hallucinated citations, confidentiality concerns, and inadequate supervision of automated work product — this measure is significant because it would create a state-level framework specifically aimed at participants inside the legal system.

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 handed workers a notable win in the long-running fight over the reach of mandatory arbitration, ruling that Tesla’s California yard hostlers fall outside the Federal Arbitration Act. The decision allows their wage-and-hour claims to continue in state court rather than being diverted into private arbitration.

The key issue was whether these workers fit within the FAA’s transportation-worker exemption.

State lawmakers and regulators are continuing to fill the AI-policy vacuum, and the latest moves in Illinois and California could have immediate consequences for how lawyers, law departments, and neutrals use generative AI in practice.

Illinois recently enacted a broad AI framework, adding to the growing patchwork of state-level rules that can affect businesses well beyond state borders.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a new front in the national fight over firearms regulation, filing suit on July 1 against California to block enforcement of the state’s newly enacted “Glock Ban” and to challenge the California Handgun Roster under the Second Amendment. The case is notable not just for its subject matter, but for the posture: the federal government is now directly attacking one of the country’s most developed state-level handgun regulatory systems.

At a high level, the lawsuit appears aimed at two pillars of California firearms law.

The Department of Justice has announced a broader fraud-enforcement push that includes creation of a new West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force covering California, Arizona, and Nevada. Although the announcement is not tied to a single newly filed case, it is a meaningful development for healthcare companies, executives, and defense counsel because it signals concentrated criminal and civil scrutiny in some of the nation’s largest healthcare markets.

The initiative, led through the DOJ Fraud Division and highlighted by Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald, points to a more coordinated enforcement approach among federal prosecutors in the region.

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped into a closely watched California insurance dispute arising from the January 2025 Southern California wildfires, filing a Statement of Interest in TODD FERRIER VS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit was brought by 60 homeowners who say they lost their homes in the fires and are now battling State Farm over insurance coverage and claim handling.

A Statement of Interest is not a ruling on the merits, but it is still a meaningful development.