A federal court in New Jersey has permanently enjoined Roxanna Cedeno, who did business as RC Travel Agency, from preparing federal tax returns or participating in any tax-preparation business. The order, entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, marks a significant enforcement action in the government’s ongoing effort to police alleged misconduct by return preparers.

The case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDENO, is a reminder that the Department of Justice continues to use civil injunction actions to shut down preparers it believes pose an ongoing risk to the tax system.

A federal appeals court has blocked above-ground construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed $400 million White House ballroom, preserving a preliminary injunction that prevents the project from moving forward while the administration seeks further review. The decision puts a high-profile spotlight on a basic constitutional question: whether the executive branch can unilaterally authorize a major structural change to the White House complex, or whether Congress must expressly approve it.

The dispute, brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has quickly become more than a fight over one building project.

KalshiEX LLC has filed a motion for an injunction in the Second Circuit, signaling that the dispute has reached a stage where ordinary appellate timing may not be enough to protect the company’s position.

KalshiEX LLC has filed a motion for injunction in the Second Circuit, a notable appellate move that signals the company is seeking immediate relief while its appeal proceeds.

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked a Trump-backed “anti-weaponization” fund, extending what appears to be one of the more consequential early checks on the administration’s effort to steer federal money toward politically charged priorities. While the underlying program has been framed as a response to alleged government “weaponization,” the court’s ruling keeps the fund on ice while the litigation proceeds and signals substantial judicial concern with how the program was created and would be administered.

Although the full contours of the ruling will matter, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the court found enough legal risk to justify stopping the flow of money now, rather than trying to unwind grants later.

A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from taking further steps to establish or operate a proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a program designed to compensate individuals the administration says were harmed by government “weaponization.” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order pauses the initiative for at least two weeks while the court considers a broader legal challenge alleging political discrimination and unlawful government action.

The dispute is now playing out in the Eastern District of Virginia in Floyd et al v. Department of Justice et al. At this early stage, the court’s intervention is significant less for what it finally decides than for what it immediately prevents: the administration cannot move forward with implementing a fund of substantial size and political consequence until the legality of the program is tested.

For litigators, the order is a reminder that courts remain willing to scrutinize fast-moving executive programs when challengers frame concrete constitutional or administrative harms.

The Federal Trade Commission announced on April 22 that a federal court in Florida temporarily shut down what the agency describes as a nationwide health-care impersonation scheme. According to the FTC, the operation allegedly posed as government entities and major insurance carriers to deceive consumers seeking health coverage or related services.

The matter is notable not just for the alleged scope of the misconduct, but for the procedural posture: the FTC obtained emergency court relief at the outset.

A federal court has ordered a central operator in an alleged timeshare-exit scheme to pay $140 million and permanently barred him from the industry, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The ruling marks a significant consumer-protection result in a sector that has drawn sustained regulatory scrutiny over claims that distressed timeshare owners were promised relief that never materialized.

The case centers on allegations that the operation took millions from consumers through deceptive representations about its ability to help owners cancel or exit their timeshare obligations.