The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a precedential opinion on May 8, 2026, in docket number 25-1873. Although the docket information currently identifies the matter only as “Precedential Opinion,” the designation alone is significant for litigators: unlike unpublished dispositions, a precedential Sixth Circuit ruling becomes binding authority within the circuit and is likely to shape briefing, motion practice, and district court decision-making going forward.

At a minimum, practitioners should treat this opinion as one requiring immediate review for any issue overlap with active matters in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

A federal appeals fight scheduled for Thursday put an unusual and consequential question before the D.C. Circuit: how far a president or executive branch may go in penalizing private law firms based on the clients they represent or positions they take in politically charged matters.

According to reporting on the matter, former President Donald Trump is seeking appellate relief tied to efforts aimed at punishing major law firms.

In a May 11, 2026 filing in Michigan Western District Court, the State of Michigan submitted a brief supporting its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in case no. 1:26-cv-00246. At this stage, the State is asking the court to end some or all of the plaintiff’s claims before discovery proceeds, arguing that the amended pleading still does not state a legally viable case.

A motion like this typically tests the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and when the defendant is a state, it often also raises threshold defenses that can dispose of a case early—most notably sovereign immunity, jurisdictional defects, or the plaintiff’s failure to plead around statutory or constitutional limits on suit.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed climate plaintiffs a meaningful procedural win, ruling that Enbridge could not remove a climate-related suit to federal court after the statutory deadline had passed. The Court rejected Enbridge’s argument that the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) could be equitably tolled, leaving the case where it began: state court.

That may sound like a narrow civil-procedure dispute, but for litigators following energy and environmental cases, it is a consequential one.

One of the most closely watched AI-adjacent copyright disputes in legal tech is moving deeper into the appellate phase. Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence are now before the Third Circuit in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH, et al v. Ross Intelligence Inc, a case that has become a bellwether for how courts may treat the use of proprietary legal content in building competing research tools.

The dispute stems from allegations that Ross used Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw headnotes and related editorial material to train or develop its legal research platform without authorization.

A newly filed joint motion in 1:25-cv-01112 in the Middle District of North Carolina suggests the parties are trying to convert an active emergency dispute into a negotiated procedural reset. View full case on Docket Alarm.

From the docket text, the filing asks the court to enter an agreed order that would, first, deny a pending preliminary injunction motion as moot and, second, grant related relief the parties have apparently negotiated.

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily preserved broader access to mifepristone, blocking a lower-court ruling that would have allowed Idaho to enforce restrictions affecting the abortion pill while the litigation moves forward. The order does not resolve the merits, but it keeps the status quo in place and signals that the justices remain deeply engaged in how post-Dobbs abortion disputes intersect with federal drug regulation.

The immediate legal question is narrower than the broader political debate: how far can a state go in limiting access to an FDA-approved drug when that access is also shaped by federal regulatory decisions? That tension has become a central battleground since Dobbs, especially where states seek to impose restrictions that may conflict with the FDA’s approval framework, labeling decisions, and distribution rules.

For litigators, the Court’s temporary intervention is a reminder that emergency relief in reproductive-rights cases can effectively determine access on the ground long before a final merits ruling.

Federal antitrust enforcers are stepping into a debate that goes to the heart of how lawyers enter the profession. In comments to the Tennessee Supreme Court, staff at the Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ’s Antitrust Division urged the court to reduce or eliminate its reliance on American Bar Association accreditation as a prerequisite for bar eligibility.

The agencies’ core argument is straightforward: when a single private accreditor effectively controls access to the profession, it can drive up educational costs and restrict competition.

The Seventh Circuit’s May 7, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Disposition (civil), No. 25-1488, is a reminder that even when an appeal does not produce a published opinion, it can still offer useful guidance for litigators on appellate standards, preservation, and the practical limits of review.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued Uber over its Uber One subscription program, alleging the company enrolled consumers without valid consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made cancellation more difficult than advertised. The case, now pending in the Northern District of California, puts one of the country’s most visible subscription products at the center of the FTC’s ongoing campaign against so-called “dark patterns” in online commerce.

According to the agency, Uber used deceptive interfaces and billing practices to sign users up for Uber One and then created unnecessary friction when they tried to cancel.

The U.S. Supreme Court appears inclined to further restrict federal agencies’ ability to impose monetary penalties through in-house proceedings, with oral argument suggesting meaningful support for telecom companies challenging the FCC’s fining process. If that instinct becomes doctrine, the decision could reshape not only communications enforcement, but also the broader administrative enforcement toolkit used across the federal government.

The dispute centers on whether the FCC may assess fines administratively against regulated entities such as ATT and Verizon, or whether the Constitution requires those claims to be tried before a jury in federal court.

The U.S. Department of Justice has rolled out its first department-wide corporate criminal enforcement policy, giving companies and their counsel a more uniform framework for one of the most consequential decisions in any internal investigation: whether to self-disclose potential misconduct.

The policy is designed to clarify when prosecutors may decline to bring criminal charges against a company that voluntarily discloses wrongdoing, fully cooperates, and timely remediates.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to pause a lower-court order holding Apple in contempt in its long-running fight with Epic Games, a procedural move that keeps immediate pressure on Apple while the broader dispute over App Store payment rules continues.

The order stems from the remedy phase of the Epic litigation, where Apple was previously directed to loosen restrictions affecting how app developers communicate alternative payment options to users.

The FTC’s lawsuit against Uber has taken on added significance with the agency’s announcement that participating states joined in an amended complaint, reinforcing a broader enforcement trend: consumer-protection cases involving billing, cancellation, and subscription design are increasingly being pursued through coordinated federal-state action.

For legal and compliance teams, that multistate posture matters.

ATT Services, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00348 on May 5, 2026.