The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a consequential new front in the federal-state debate over immigration and public benefits, suing New Jersey over state laws that allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition and state financial assistance at public colleges and universities. The complaint tees up a challenge with both preemption and constitutional dimensions, and it is likely to draw close attention from states, higher-education institutions, and practitioners watching the boundaries of state authority in immigration-adjacent policymaking.

At issue are New Jersey measures that extend reduced tuition rates and aid eligibility to certain students without lawful immigration status, provided they meet state-defined criteria.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed oil and gas defendants a meaningful procedural victory in long-running Louisiana coastal-damage litigation, unanimously holding that the companies may pursue a federal forum under the federal-officer removal statute when the challenged conduct is tied to wartime fuel production for the federal government. The ruling, covered in AP’s report on the decision, does not resolve the merits of the environmental claims.

The Justice Department has filed suit against New Jersey, Gov. Mikie Sherrill, and Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, alleging that the state’s “Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act” unlawfully restricts federal law-enforcement activity. The case, filed in federal court in New Jersey, tees up a direct confrontation over the limits of state power when federal officers operate within state borders.

At the center of the dispute is a familiar constitutional fault line: whether a state may regulate, constrain, or impose conditions on federal officials carrying out federal duties.

In one of the most consequential election-law rulings of the term, the Supreme Court on April 29 struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, holding that the state’s SB8 plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court concluded that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, and without that predicate, the state could not rely on compliance with federal voting-rights law as a compelling interest to justify race-based line drawing.

The decision in Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al. immediately reshapes the legal landscape for redistricting disputes.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00343 on April 24, 2026. While the publicly available docket caption currently identifies the proceeding by petitioner name, the filing is one worth watching for companies and counsel involved in consumer products, design-adjacent utility patents, and competitive product litigation.

At this stage, the PTAB docket reflects that Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is the petitioner seeking review of an issued patent.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has sued Cloudera Inc., alleging the company unlawfully favored temporary visa workers over available U.S. workers in its recruiting and hiring practices. The case, brought under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is a notable reminder that immigration-related hiring enforcement is not limited to I-9 paperwork or visa petition scrutiny. It can also reach the design and execution of talent acquisition strategies themselves.

According to the government, Cloudera intentionally discriminated against U.S. workers, steering opportunities toward visa holders in a way that violated federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared hesitant during oral argument to embrace ATT and Verizon’s effort to upend the Federal Communications Commission’s in-house penalty process, a challenge that could have reshaped how federal agencies pursue civil enforcement.

The dispute stems from FCC allegations that the telecom companies failed to adequately protect customers’ location data, allowing sensitive information to be sold or accessed without sufficient safeguards.

The Federal Trade Commission, joined by a coalition of states, has launched a significant enforcement action aimed at alleged collusion among major advertising agencies in the digital advertising market. The April 15 announcement is notable not just for the parties involved, but for where regulators are focusing next: beyond dominant technology platforms and into the intermediary ad ecosystem that influences pricing, placement, and competition across online media.

That matters because advertising agencies sit at a critical junction between brands, publishers, platforms, and consumers.

A new inter partes review, IPR2026-00343, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 24, 2026, naming Skechers U.S.A., Inc. in the proceeding.

The Justice Department has announced the arraignment of Cole Tomas Allen, 31, in U.S. District Court on charges stemming from the April 25, 2026 shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. Most notably, prosecutors say the case includes an allegation of attempted assassination of the president—instantly making it one of the most closely watched federal criminal matters on the docket.

At this stage, the arraignment is a procedural step, but it is also the formal point at which the federal case becomes concrete for court watchers: charges are presented, counsel appearances are made, and the court begins managing detention, scheduling, and the early pretrial process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has struck down a Trump-era executive order that sought to suspend access to asylum at the southern border, holding that the president cannot use a proclamation to override the asylum process Congress created in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The ruling is significant because it reinforces a basic separation-of-powers principle in the immigration context: where a federal statute gives noncitizens the right to apply for asylum, the executive branch cannot eliminate that statutory pathway by unilateral order.

The Ninth Circuit’s April 20, 2026 decision in docket No. 23-2527 offers a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure and standards of review as on the underlying merits. In an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., the court addressed a civil appeal and clarified how federal appellate courts will evaluate the issues preserved below, the district court’s reasoning, and the appellant’s burden on review.

Although the full significance of the ruling will depend on the underlying claims and procedural posture, the opinion appears to fit squarely within a recurring Ninth Circuit theme: appellants must do more than identify alleged error.

A federal judge in Manhattan has sharply narrowed one of the most closely watched criminal cases in the country, ruling that prosecutors cannot pursue the death penalty against Luigi Mangione in connection with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Judge Margaret Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the murder count that exposed Mangione to capital punishment, while allowing stalking charges to remain in place.

The ruling is significant not only because of the profile of the alleged victim and the public attention surrounding the case, but also because it underscores the limits of federal charging authority in capital cases.

Apple has filed a new inter partes review, IPR2026-00340, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 24, 2026, opening another closely watched front in the company’s patent dispute strategy. The proceeding is captioned Apple Inc., and, as with many newly filed PTAB matters, practitioners will be watching the petition and any forthcoming preliminary response to see how the issues are framed before the Board decides whether to institute review.

At this early stage, the public docket identifies Apple as the petitioner but may not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically want immediately, including the patent owner’s identity, the patent number being challenged, and the precise prior-art grounds asserted.

A Colorado state court this week vacated a murder conviction after prosecutors agreed that newly developed medical evidence showed an infant’s death was caused by pneumonia rather than abusive shaking. The ruling came after the defendant had spent 27 years in prison, making it one of the most significant criminal-case developments of the week both for the length of incarceration involved and for the prosecution’s unusual decision to support setting the conviction aside.

The case is notable because it centers on a familiar but increasingly scrutinized feature of older homicide prosecutions: medical testimony presented as definitive at trial, only to be challenged years later by advances in science and changes in professional consensus.