A federal appeals court has refused to let the Trump administration implement an executive order affecting mail-in voting while the case moves forward, leaving in place a district court ruling that found the challenged action likely exceeded presidential authority. The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit preserves a preliminary injunction entered by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in litigation brought by multiple states.

The dispute centers on a familiar constitutional fault line: how far the executive branch can go in regulating election administration, an area traditionally handled by the states.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has voided a proposed settlement between Donald Trump and the IRS, concluding that the agreement was tainted by an improper effort to leverage a massive damages suit for personal benefit rather than a legitimate litigation resolution. In the same ruling, the court referred lawyers on both sides to disciplinary authorities, turning what might have been a high-profile tax dispute into a stark warning about abuse of process and counsel conduct.

The decision is notable not just because of the parties involved, but because of the remedy.

A federal judge has issued a striking rebuke in litigation involving President Donald Trump and the IRS, concluding that the lawsuit was pursued for an improper purpose and referring lawyers involved for possible disciplinary review. Although the underlying case had already been dismissed and a proposed settlement blocked, the opinion carries consequences far beyond this dispute.

According to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, the case was used not simply to resolve a legal controversy, but to obtain a settlement that would have created a massive compensation fund and delivered related benefits through the machinery of federal litigation.

A federal judge has reportedly voided a settlement involving the IRS and former President Donald Trump, a ruling that could have consequences well beyond the parties to the agreement. At a high level, the decision appears to turn on whether the settlement was lawfully structured and whether the government actors involved had the authority to bind the IRS in the manner they did.

That makes this more than a political headline.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a significant state constitutional ruling, unanimously holding that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protects private landowners from warrantless searches of posted private property. In doing so, the court rejected the federal “open fields” doctrine as a matter of Pennsylvania law, marking an important divergence from federal search-and-seizure doctrine.

The “open fields” doctrine, recognized under the Fourth Amendment, has long allowed law enforcement to enter and inspect certain land outside the home and its immediate surroundings without a warrant.

Johnson Johnson has announced a proposed $5.5 billion global resolution aimed at settling tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer, a major development in one of the country’s most closely watched mass torts.

The Supreme Court’s June 18 decision in Hunter v. United States is poised to reshape how courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel think about appeal waivers in criminal plea agreements. In a significant ruling, the Court held that such waivers are not categorically enforceable when enforcing them would result in a miscarriage of justice.

That holding marks an important shift in a plea-driven criminal system where appeal waivers have long been treated as a powerful tool for finality.

The Justice Department is elevating data security into a core national-security enforcement priority, with new public messaging and implementation activity around the federal government’s effort to restrict sensitive U.S. data from reaching foreign adversaries.

The EPA has finalized a settlement with Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC over alleged hazardous-waste mismanagement and chloroprene-related violations at the company’s LaPlace, Louisiana facility, closing out claims brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. While RCRA settlements are not unusual on their own, this one stands out because EPA framed waste-handling deficiencies as part of a broader set of environmental and public-health risks tied to the facility’s emissions profile and its long-running scrutiny from regulators, residents, and litigants.

That matters.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has resumed a targeted Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, an important signal that federal merger scrutiny remains active and potentially more exacting for certain transactions. While this development is not tied to a single headline-grabbing court fight, it matters because the HSR process is the front door to U.S. merger enforcement: changes in how the government screens deals can directly affect closing timelines, regulatory strategy, and overall transaction risk.

The announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division suggests that parties should expect renewed attention to selected reportable deals during the premerger review stage.

The Long Island serial-killer prosecution is expected to reach a major procedural milestone Wednesday, when the defendant is sentenced in New York state court. Under the reported plea arrangement, a life sentence is anticipated, bringing one of the region’s most closely watched homicide cases to its formal punishment phase.

For criminal practitioners, the sentencing marks more than the end of a headline-grabbing prosecution.

Federal authorities have announced a $24 million civil fraud settlement involving a Dallas laboratory and certain owners and investors over alleged misconduct tied to COVID-19 testing. The resolution is a notable reminder that pandemic-era billing practices remain a live enforcement priority, especially where the government believes testing claims were inflated, medically unnecessary, or otherwise noncompliant.

Although the matter was resolved through settlement rather than a litigated judgment, the size of the payment underscores how aggressively the Department of Justice continues to use civil fraud tools in the healthcare space.

Two of the eight men charged in a highly unusual alleged terrorism plot have pleaded not guilty in federal court in Ohio, moving forward one of the more closely watched recent criminal cases involving alleged plans to attack a public event on the White House lawn. The defendants, Tycen Proper and Chandler Scaggs, are among a group accused in a purported drone-and-sniper conspiracy targeting a UFC event, with the proceedings before U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus Jr.

The case has drawn outsized attention because of the alleged target, the nature of the conspiracy allegations, and the fact that multiple defendants are being handled in consolidated federal proceedings.

Thomas C. Goldstein, a nationally known Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, has been sentenced in federal court to 72 months in prison for tax crimes and mortgage fraud. The court also revoked his bond and remanded him into custody at sentencing, an unusually sharp procedural turn that underscores how seriously the court viewed the conduct and the need for immediate detention.

The case stands out not only because of the sentence length, but because of the defendant’s stature in the legal profession.

The U.S. Department of Justice on July 9 announced prison sentences for Neil Suresh Chandran and Bryan Lee in a sweeping investor-fraud case that prosecutors said caused more than $45 million in losses to over 10,000 investors. According to the government, the defendants promoted false narratives about extraordinary company valuations and imminent buyouts, using those claims to induce investments on a massive scale.

The sentencings are notable not only for the size of the alleged fraud, but also for the victim count.