The Associated Press scored a notable courtroom win Thursday in its copyright dispute with the producers behind a documentary tied to the Alex Murdaugh murder trial, after a federal judge ruled that AP owns the rights to a post-verdict interview with the trial’s dismissed “egg juror” and that the agreement used to secure that interview is valid and enforceable.

The dispute centered on whether AP had exclusive rights to the juror’s account after negotiating and paying for the interview shortly after the highly publicized South Carolina trial.

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 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 in Washington has preliminarily blocked the Defense Department from forcing New York Times reporters to be accompanied by escorts while they pursue their challenge to Pentagon press-access restrictions, a ruling that signals meaningful judicial skepticism toward the policy under the First Amendment.

The dispute, now pending as NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY et al v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al, centers on whether the Pentagon can impose differential access burdens on a major news organization in a way that appears to impede routine newsgathering.

The Justice Department’s second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over his “86 47” social-media post has quickly become one of the most closely watched criminal matters on the federal docket. The case sits at the intersection of true-threat doctrine, prosecutorial discretion, and the constitutional limits of charging politically charged speech.

According to reporting on the matter, prosecutors contend the post amounted to a threat against the president.

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 17 issued a closely watched First Amendment ruling in Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al., holding that Colorado’s law restricting licensed counselors from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity must be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

The Justice Department has settled a closely watched lawsuit challenging the State Department’s alleged role in funding and promoting social media censorship during the Biden administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major First Amendment ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, holding that Colorado’s conversion-therapy law, as applied to a licensed counselor’s talk therapy with minors, regulates speech based on viewpoint and that the lower courts did not apply the required level of constitutional scrutiny. The decision is likely to reshape ongoing litigation over state regulation of licensed professionals and could prompt renewed challenges to similar laws across the country.

The case was brought by counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s law barred her from engaging in voluntary, client-directed conversations about sexuality and gender identity when those conversations sought outcomes the state disfavored.