The Third Circuit has revived a closely watched challenge to New Jersey’s gun-industry public-nuisance statute, allowing the National Shooting Sports Foundation to continue pressing claims that the law is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law. In a September 8, 2026 decision, the appellate court reversed a lower-court stay that had paused the federal case while related state-court issues played out.

The dispute centers on a New Jersey law authorizing civil actions against firearm manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for conduct alleged to endanger public health and safety.

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked newly drawn congressional districts backed by President Donald Trump from being used in the November 2026 general election, dealing a significant blow to Republican redistricting efforts in the state. The court also ordered that Missouri voters get a statewide say on whether the districts should remain in place, adding a direct-democracy dimension to an already high-stakes election law fight.

The ruling is significant not just because of its political consequences, but because it underscores how state supreme courts continue to play a central role in policing redistricting disputes.

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 sharply limited the government’s ability to use immigration enforcement against noncitizen students based on political speech critical of Israel or the war in Gaza. In a ruling reported by the Associated Press, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court in California found the policy likely violates the First Amendment and is impermissibly vague, barring enforcement while the case proceeds.

The challenge was brought with the involvement of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the decision is notable because it addresses a question that has been looming over colleges and universities since protests intensified: whether the executive branch can treat campus advocacy as a basis for deportation when that advocacy is otherwise protected expression.

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.

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a new front in federal-state immigration litigation, filing suits against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont over laws that allow certain undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates and, in some cases, state financial aid. The federal government’s core argument is that these state policies conflict with federal restrictions on postsecondary education benefits tied to immigration status.

At the center of the dispute is the interaction between federal immigration law and state authority over public higher education.

A federal judge in Boston has again ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting mail voting, handing the administration another setback as it pushes for Supreme Court intervention before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision keeps in place a barrier to federal efforts that challengers say would reshape election administration by creating a federal voter list and drawing the U.S. Postal Service into election-related functions traditionally handled by states.

The ruling comes in consolidated litigation brought by voting-rights groups and Democratic state attorneys general, including League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al v. Trump et al and State of California et al v. Trump et al in the District of Massachusetts.

A federal judge in Boston has again blocked key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at expanding the federal government’s role in election administration, marking another significant judicial check on the administration’s effort to reshape voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, ruled against provisions that would have helped create a federal voter list and more directly inserted federal authority into functions traditionally handled by states.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has concluded that Department of Homeland Security and ICE guidance failed to comply with an earlier court order restricting warrantless immigration arrests in the District. The ruling, from Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks an unusually direct judicial rebuke: not just disagreement over policy, but a finding that agency conduct did not match the limits the court had already imposed.

At the center of the dispute is the scope of ICE’s authority to make warrantless arrests and whether revised agency guidance meaningfully honored the court’s prior restrictions.

A federal judge in South Dakota has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a state abortion-advertising restriction against a reproductive-health education nonprofit and an attorney, concluding the challengers are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. The ruling is another important entry in the growing body of post-Dobbs litigation testing how far states can go when regulating not just abortion procedures, but speech about abortion.

At this stage, the court did not finally decide the statute’s constitutionality.

A federal judge on July 2 temporarily blocked Philadelphia from enforcing a city measure aimed at federal immigration operations, preventing the city from requiring federal officers to go unmasked, display visible identification, and use marked vehicles during enforcement activity. The ruling is an early but important development in a fast-evolving conflict between local efforts to regulate immigration tactics and the federal government’s claim to operational control over its officers.

At the center of the dispute is a familiar constitutional fault line: whether a municipality can impose rules that affect how federal officers carry out federal law.

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.

As the Supreme Court enters the final stretch of its term, the legal industry is closely watching a cluster of pending decisions that could reshape litigation strategy, regulatory compliance, and constitutional doctrine well beyond June. The current legal news cycle is being driven less by a single blockbuster ruling than by the unusually broad practical impact of the Court’s remaining docket.

The cases drawing the most attention reportedly span administrative authority, civil rights, employment-related disputes, and the scope of federal power.

The Supreme Court on June 18 narrowed how the federal government may apply the firearms ban covering “unlawful users” of controlled substances, rejecting a broader theory that could have swept in a wide range of gun owners, including some marijuana users. The ruling is likely to become a significant reference point in Second Amendment litigation because it addresses how closely firearm restrictions must fit the government’s asserted public-safety rationale.

At issue was the federal statute that bars certain drug users from possessing firearms.

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked a Trump-backed “anti-weaponization” fund, extending what appears to be one of the more consequential early checks on the administration’s effort to steer federal money toward politically charged priorities. While the underlying program has been framed as a response to alleged government “weaponization,” the court’s ruling keeps the fund on ice while the litigation proceeds and signals substantial judicial concern with how the program was created and would be administered.

Although the full contours of the ruling will matter, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the court found enough legal risk to justify stopping the flow of money now, rather than trying to unwind grants later.