The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a $400 million settlement with TikTok and ByteDance resolving children’s privacy litigation under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. According to the government, the deal resolves a 2024 lawsuit alleging unlawful data practices involving minors and ranks among the largest recoveries ever obtained in a COPPA matter.

For companies operating consumer-facing digital platforms, the size of the settlement is the headline—but the broader takeaway is the government’s continued willingness to pursue major privacy penalties where minors are involved.

A federal court in New Jersey has permanently enjoined Roxanna Cedeno, who did business as RC Travel Agency, from preparing federal tax returns or participating in any tax-preparation business. The order, entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, marks a significant enforcement action in the government’s ongoing effort to police alleged misconduct by return preparers.

The case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDENO, is a reminder that the Department of Justice continues to use civil injunction actions to shut down preparers it believes pose an ongoing risk to the tax system.

Federal prosecutors have unsealed a nine-count indictment charging Louis Trejo, Kenneth Garner, Harold Stevenson, and Erihk Belis in a sweeping alleged scheme that combines classic healthcare fraud allegations with racketeering, firearms, narcotics, money laundering, and violence-related counts. According to the Justice Department, the case centers on an alleged “War Room” enterprise that used fabricated transportation data to support at least $12 million in fraudulent Medicaid claims.

The charging mix is what makes this filing especially notable.

A California federal judge has approved the Justice Department’s settlement allowing Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks to move forward, rejecting objections from a coalition of state attorneys general and closing a closely watched chapter in federal merger enforcement.

The case, United States of America v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al, drew unusual attention because the dispute was not just over the substance of the antitrust remedy, but also over whether the court should probe claims that outside lobbying may have influenced the DOJ’s settlement decision.

Veloxis Pharmaceuticals has agreed to pay more than $46 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that it used kickbacks to drive prescriptions and purchases of Envarsus XR, its kidney-transplant drug. According to the Department of Justice, the resolution includes a deferred prosecution agreement tied to a criminal information filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, underscoring the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical marketing practices that allegedly influence prescribing decisions.

The matter is significant because it combines both criminal and civil exposure in a single healthcare-fraud resolution.

The legal fallout is still building from a federal judge’s decision to throw out a settlement in President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, concluding the agreement had “no basis in law.” The ruling did more than unwind a headline-grabbing deal: it opened the door to sanctions, ethics referrals, and renewed scrutiny of how government lawyers and private counsel structure settlements in politically sensitive litigation.

In the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kathleen Williams reportedly found that the settlement could not stand because it exceeded lawful authority and appeared to use the judicial process in a way the court would not endorse.

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.

The SEC’s new fraud case against former executives of subprime auto lender Tricolor stands out as one of the week’s most consequential enforcement developments, even though it was announced on August 18.

Two recent federal criminal actions show the Justice Department continuing to press aggressively in both competition and health care enforcement. In Oklahoma City, a federal jury convicted Sioux Erosion Control Inc., along with one executive and one employee, for participating in a roughly $100 million bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracy tied to public transportation contracts. In a separate matter, prosecutors unsealed a racketeering indictment accusing four alleged members of the “War Room” of orchestrating a $12 million Medicaid fraud scheme.

Taken together, the matters are a reminder that DOJ is treating criminal antitrust and health care fraud as parallel priority areas, with consequences that extend well beyond the charged defendants.

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 Second Circuit has revived investor claims arising from the 2023 collapse of Signature Bank, handing shareholders an important win in a closely watched dispute over who gets to control fraud-based claims after a bank fails.

At the center of the appeal was the FDIC’s argument that, once it became receiver for Signature Bank, it alone had the authority to pursue the securities-related claims at issue.

The Supreme Court has declined to review Donald Trump’s effort to undo the civil verdict in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll, leaving intact the $5 million judgment entered after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The denial leaves the Second Circuit’s decision in place and effectively ends this round of appellate review in one of the most closely watched personal-liability cases involving a president.

The petition came in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Petitioner v. E. Jean Carroll, following appellate proceedings that preserved the trial result.

The Department of Justice has announced a significant federal indictment in the Northern District of Georgia charging Zhu Chen, Jiayi Chen, and Jianjun Lu with forced labor, conspiracy to commit forced labor, and alien harboring. The case, brought as United States v. Zhu Chen, Jiayi Chen, and Jianjun Lu, underscores how federal prosecutors are continuing to pair labor-exploitation allegations with immigration-related charges in high-stakes criminal enforcement actions.

According to DOJ, the indictment alleges a combination of coercive labor practices and unlawful harboring of noncitizens.

The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in behind a proposal before the Ohio Supreme Court that would reduce the American Bar Association’s central role in determining which law schools qualify graduates for bar admission. While the change is specific to Ohio’s attorney-licensing framework, the implications are much broader: it touches the long-running debate over whether a single private organization should wield outsized influence over entry into the legal profession.

For decades, ABA accreditation has functioned as the default gatekeeper for many state bar systems.

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.