A New York appellate court heard arguments in President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn his 2024 conviction on felony falsifying-business-records charges arising from the so-called hush-money case. The hearing drew intense attention not only because it involves the first criminal conviction of a former—and now current—U.S. president, but also because the appeal tests how far prosecutors can go in pairing state records-fraud statutes with alleged election-related misconduct.

The judges reportedly focused on the core legal theory behind the felony counts.

The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of states have secured a $49.75 million settlement with Progress Residential, LLC and its owner, Pretium Partners, resolving allegations that the companies used deceptive rental pricing and engaged in related unlawful conduct in the single-family rental market. The action is notable not only for its size, but also for where regulators aimed it: fee and pricing practices in a fast-growing segment of institutional housing.

According to the FTC, the case focused on allegedly misleading representations about the true cost of renting homes, along with other practices affecting tenants during the leasing process and tenancy.

The Federal Trade Commission and 22 state attorneys general have publicly released additional, previously redacted allegations in their enforcement case against Amazon, offering a more detailed look at claims that the company manipulated advertising auctions and drove up prices paid by advertisers. The newly visible allegations sharpen the factual contours of one of the most consequential antitrust and unfair-practices cases now pending against a major technology platform.

According to the agencies, Amazon’s ad-auction practices did more than affect internal marketplace mechanics: they allegedly distorted pricing in a way that harmed advertisers purchasing access to consumers on Amazon’s platform.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in No. 25-12239 is now available, and while the significance of any appellate ruling ultimately turns on its specific holdings, this decision is worth attention for what it says about the court’s approach to appellate review and issue framing. For litigators practicing in federal court, Eleventh Circuit opinions often carry practical guidance well beyond the immediate parties.

At a high level, the opinion reflects a recurring theme in appellate jurisprudence: the court’s insistence on careful preservation of issues below, disciplined briefing on appeal, and close adherence to the governing standard of review.

A new inter partes review proceeding, IPR2027-00030, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, captioned Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. For patent litigators, portfolio managers, and in-house IP counsel, this is a matter worth watching early—especially because PTAB filings can quickly reshape parallel district court litigation, licensing leverage, and claim scope strategy.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding title, forum, and filing date, but does not yet provide the full set of details practitioners typically look for at first glance, such as the specific patent number being challenged, the named patent owner and petitioner alignment, or the precise prior-art grounds asserted in the petition.

A new inter partes review proceeding, IPR2027-00030, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, under the caption Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. As of the current docket entry, the publicly available case title identifies Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd., but practitioners should watch for additional filings that clarify the full party alignment, including the petitioner, patent owner, and the specific patent being challenged.

At this early stage, the PTAB docket signals the opening move in what could become an important dispute in the 3D imaging, scanning, or related hardware/software space.

Thursday’s legal news cycle underscored how quickly the risk environment can shift for companies, litigators, and compliance teams. According to today’s reporting, seven major developments stood out across court rulings, criminal matters, enforcement activity, and broader institutional changes affecting the legal system.

What makes this collection of stories notable is not simply volume, but range.

A federal appeals court has revived the jury’s antitrust verdict in the long-running NFL “Sunday Ticket” litigation, putting one of the most closely watched sports-antitrust battles back on center stage. The decision restores significant leverage to the subscriber plaintiffs after the trial court had set aside the jury’s damages award, and it reopens the prospect of massive exposure tied to the league’s out-of-market game package.

The litigation challenges the NFL’s distribution model for Sunday Ticket, alleging that the league and its member teams unlawfully restricted competition and inflated prices for consumers and commercial subscribers.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York announced that Daniel Sikkema has been sentenced to life in prison for the January 14, 2024 murder of his husband, prominent art dealer Brent Sikkema, in Rio de Janeiro. U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos imposed the sentence in a case that drew significant public attention because of the victim’s profile, the international setting of the killing, and the federal government’s role in prosecuting conduct tied to a homicide committed abroad.

For legal professionals, the case is a reminder of how aggressively federal authorities can pursue violent crimes with cross-border dimensions when there is a sufficient U.S. nexus.

A new inter partes review, IPR2027-00029, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2026, in a proceeding titled Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. At this early stage, the docket signals the opening of a potentially important dispute for companies operating in the 3D scanning, additive manufacturing, and digital modeling space.

Based on the currently available docket information, the proceeding centers on a challenge to a patent associated with or asserted against Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. As with any newly filed IPR, the key questions for practitioners will be: which claims are targeted, what prior art has been raised, and whether the petition frames a broader strategy tied to district court litigation, ITC proceedings, or licensing negotiations.

The PTAB docket entry identifies the case and filing date, but practitioners should expect the most significant details to emerge through the petition and subsequent papers.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking to compel Harvard University to produce years of applicant-level admissions records as part of an investigation into whether the school continued to use race-conscious admissions practices after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions.

The ruling is notable less for what it decides on the merits than for what it prevents, at least for now: a federal court-backed effort to force disclosure of highly sensitive admissions data in service of a broader civil rights probe.

A federal judge in Alaska has dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit that sought to stop certification of the state’s U.S. Senate race, concluding that the requested relief was no longer workable once large numbers of ballots had already been cast. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, stands out as a forceful reminder that timing can be decisive in election litigation—especially where federal courts are asked to intervene after voting is already underway.

At a high level, the court’s ruling reflects a familiar but increasingly important principle: even where a plaintiff raises serious concerns, a court may decline to grant relief if the remedy would create more disruption than it would prevent.

A federal judge in Washington has put off deciding whether to throw out a criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, giving prosecutors more time to pursue a formal indictment tied to an alleged 2016 leak of classified information. The pause keeps alive a closely watched procedural fight over how the Justice Department initiated the case and whether that approach lawfully preserved charges before the statute of limitations expired.

At the center of the dispute is the government’s use of what defense lawyers characterize as a placeholder charging mechanism.

A federal judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing to air three government-funded advertisements on television and social media, ruling that the challengers are likely to succeed on their claim that public funds were used for impermissible partisan messaging.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon’s order is preliminary, not final.

A federal judge has delayed ruling on whether to dismiss a placeholder criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, leaving in place an unusual procedural posture while the Justice Department considers whether to seek a formal indictment tied to a 2016 classified-information leak allegation. The matter, now closely watched by the defense bar and former-government-official circles alike, raises questions that go well beyond the individual defendant.

The public-facing docket in USA v. Comey reflects a case that is not proceeding in the ordinary sequence of complaint, charging instrument, and adjudication.