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.

OhioHealth has agreed to stop using contract provisions that federal antitrust enforcers said restricted insurers’ ability to guide patients to lower-cost providers, resolving one of two government healthcare competition cases against the system. The settlement is a notable reminder that, even as enforcement priorities shift more broadly in Washington, healthcare remains a sector where regulators continue to scrutinize contracting practices that may limit price competition.

At the center of the dispute were alleged “anti-steering” terms in payer contracts.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has completed its review of Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. and concluded the transaction is not likely to substantially lessen competition. In most deal cycles, that would mark the end of the government review story. Here, it may be the beginning of the litigation story.

According to reports, attorneys general in California, New York, and potentially other states are preparing to challenge the merger anyway.

Tesla Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00380 on June 18, 2026.

The Seventh Circuit has entered a final judgment in Appeal No. 25-1963 through a nonprecedential disposition, according to the court’s June 16, 2026 order. While the docket entry itself is brief, the procedural posture is still significant for appellate practitioners: the case has been resolved on the merits in a form that binds the parties but does not create precedential law for future litigants.

In practical terms, a “final judgment filed per nonprecedential disposition” means the court concluded the appeal and issued its decision in an unpublished or nonprecedential format rather than through a published opinion.

The Justice Department’s June 19 release slate underscores a familiar but still accelerating reality for companies and counsel: federal enforcement remains broad, fast-moving, and increasingly coordinated across criminal, civil, and regulatory lines. While the day’s headlines span multiple subject areas, the common thread is the government’s continued use of parallel tools—indictments, guilty pleas, settlements, and public-facing compliance messaging—to shape behavior well beyond the immediate defendants.

For legal professionals, the significance is less about any single announcement than about the pattern.

A federal judge in Virginia has indefinitely blocked a roughly $1.8 billion Justice Department fund designed to compensate alleged victims of “lawfare” and government “weaponization,” stopping what had become one of the more unusual post-settlement funding arrangements tied to litigation involving President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, of the Eastern District of Virginia, concluded that the challenged arrangement raised serious legal concerns, especially around whether the executive branch can effectively create or direct a massive compensation pool without clear congressional authorization.

ResMed Corp. has been named in a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00341, filed on June 12, 2026, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. While the newly filed docket entry identifies the proceeding by the company name, practitioners will want to watch closely as the petition develops and the challenged patent, claims at issue, and prior-art combinations come into sharper focus through the institution briefing.

At this stage, the publicly available case caption signals that a patent associated with ResMed’s portfolio is being challenged at the PTAB.

Tesla Inc. is the named petitioner in a newly filed inter partes review, IPR2026-00382, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, adding another matter for practitioners tracking high-stakes validity disputes before the USPTO.

In a brief but consequential disposition, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and remanded the case for further proceedings. Even without a full merits opinion reproduced here, that procedural outcome alone is significant for litigators: a reversal and remand from the Court typically signals that the lower court applied the wrong legal framework, failed to account for controlling precedent, or resolved an issue prematurely.

At a high level, the Court’s action means the prior judgment cannot stand.

On June 11, 2026, the Supreme Court entered a judgment reversing and remanding in No. 24-345. At least from the docket entry presently available, the key takeaway is procedural rather than substantive: the Court concluded that the judgment below could not stand and sent the matter back for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Because the public-facing case description here is limited to the judgment disposition, practitioners should be cautious about overreading the result until the full opinion is reviewed.

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.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00230 is a useful reminder of how decisively the Board will resolve validity disputes when the petitioner’s prior-art combinations, expert support, and claim construction positions align cleanly with the intrinsic record. In this June 11, 2026 decision, the PTAB concluded the inter partes review on the merits and determined the patentability of the challenged claims under the instituted grounds.

Although each final written decision turns on the particular technology and references at issue, the structure of the Board’s analysis here follows a familiar and important pattern for practitioners.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Securities and Exchange Commission an important enforcement victory on June 4, upholding the agency’s authority to pursue disgorgement in securities cases. The ruling preserves a remedy the SEC has long relied on to strip alleged wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains, and it arrives at a moment when the Court has often taken a more skeptical view of federal agency power.

For the SEC, disgorgement is not just an add-on remedy.

The Justice Department has announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Inc. and related companies to resolve allegations that they evaded customs duties on imported aluminum products by submitting false entry paperwork. The recovery stands out both for its size and for what it signals about the government’s continued willingness to use the False Claims Act as a tool in trade and customs enforcement.

According to the government, the misconduct centered on false statements and documentation affecting duties owed on aluminum imports.