The U.S. Supreme Court on April 17, 2026 handed Chevron a significant procedural victory in long-running Louisiana coastal-damage litigation, unanimously ruling that the company may pursue removal to federal court in a major suit brought by Plaquemines Parish. The decision does not resolve the merits of the parish’s land-loss and environmental damage claims, but it strengthens a key defense strategy in a wave of cases targeting oil and gas operators for decades of coastal erosion and wetlands degradation.

The case, Chevron USA Incorporated, et al., Petitioners v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al., has been closely watched because Louisiana’s coastal suits have produced enormous exposure risk.

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.

Illinois lawmakers are drawing national attention with proposed House and Senate bills that would tighten restrictions on how law firms interact with alternative business structure and management-service organization models. While the measures have not been enacted, they stand out because they go directly to some of the most contested questions in the legal industry: who can own, manage, and profit from legal services.

At a high level, the proposals would reinforce longstanding limits on nonlawyer involvement in the practice of law, including concerns about fee-sharing, ownership, and operational control.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, joined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has filed a civil antitrust case against The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, alleging the hospital used contractual restrictions that limited insurers’ ability to steer patients to lower-cost providers.

The case, United States Of America v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, is one to watch for healthcare providers, payors, and counsel advising on managed care contracting.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated IPR2025-01302 after the parties settled following institution of trial, illustrating the Board’s usual approach when a dispute becomes moot before a final written decision. The order is a reminder that, even after institution, settlement can still bring an IPR to a close—though timing and procedural posture matter.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the PTAB’s trial rules, an instituted inter partes review may be terminated upon joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has already decided the merits.

The U.S. Supreme Court moved a major Trump-related dispute onto its docket, signaling that the justices are prepared to weigh in on one of the most legally and politically charged issues of the term: the challenge to President Donald Trump’s birthright-citizenship executive order and, just as importantly, the scope of nationwide injunctions entered against federal policy.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Applicants v. CASA, Inc., et al., arises from litigation brought by CASA and states opposing the order.

A federal judge in Connecticut has declined to pause the multistate antitrust litigation accusing generic-drug manufacturers of price-fixing, even as settlement discussions continue. The decision keeps one of the most closely watched coordinated state enforcement actions on an active track, preserving litigation pressure while negotiations unfold in parallel.

The case is part of the long-running generic-drug pricing litigation brought by a coalition of state attorneys general against multiple manufacturers.

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 North Carolina Supreme Court has brought the long-running Leandro school-funding litigation to a close, issuing a 4-3 decision that rejects earlier rulings allowing trial courts to order the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to address alleged constitutional shortfalls in public education.

The Supreme Court remained the center of attention in the legal news cycle on April 16, even without an obvious blockbuster merits opinion emerging from the day’s accessible reporting. That is notable in itself. For lawyers tracking the Court, some of the most important days are not defined by a headline-grabbing ruling, but by the way the Court’s posture shapes what the rest of the legal system is watching.

In practical terms, today’s court-driven momentum appears to have come more from lower-court and trial-level developments than from a fresh Supreme Court merits decision.

A federal judge in Manhattan has dealt a significant blow to the government’s strategy in the prosecution of Luigi Mangione, ruling that prosecutors cannot pursue the death penalty in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The decision came by dismissing the federal murder count that opened the door to capital punishment, while allowing stalking charges to remain in place.

That distinction matters.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, joined by the Ohio Attorney General, has filed a civil antitrust suit against OhioHealth, alleging the health system used contracting practices that unlawfully restricted competition and increased healthcare costs. The case, United States of America et al v. OhioHealth Corporation, puts a spotlight on how enforcers are continuing to scrutinize not just mergers, but also the day-to-day terms health systems negotiate with commercial payers.

That distinction matters.

The antitrust challenge to Live Nation and Ticketmaster remains one of the most closely watched business cases in the country, even as reports indicate the U.S. Department of Justice reached a tentative settlement with the company in March 2026. The reason is straightforward: a broad coalition of states is still pressing forward, ensuring that the litigation continues to shape how courts, regulators, and the live-entertainment industry think about market power, vertical integration, and consumer harm.

The case, pending in the Southern District of New York as United States of America et al v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al, targets practices that have long drawn criticism from artists, venues, fans, and policymakers: ticketing fees, exclusive venue arrangements, and the combined influence that comes from operating both ticketing platforms and concert promotion businesses.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the challenge to the federal law targeting TikTok marks one of the most consequential intersections of national security, platform regulation, and First Amendment law in years. The dispute centers on a statute requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok or face restrictions on the app’s U.S. operations, with challengers arguing the law unlawfully burdens speech and exceeds constitutional limits.

The Court’s involvement is significant not just because of TikTok’s reach, but because the case tests how far the political branches can go when regulating a communications platform on national security grounds.

A newly filed opposition in IPR2025-00677 puts a familiar but strategically important PTAB issue front and center: whether a patent owner’s proposed substitute claims can survive scrutiny when offered through a contingent motion to amend. In its April 7, 2026 filing, the petitioner asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the patent owner’s amendment request, arguing that the revised claims still do not satisfy the governing patentability and procedural standards.

A contingent motion to amend is exactly what it sounds like: the patent owner proposes substitute claims only if the Board finds the original claims unpatentable.