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The Seventh Circuit’s May 7, 2026 disposition in Nonprecedential Disposition (civil), No. 25-1488, is a reminder that even when an appeal does not produce a published opinion, it can still offer useful guidance for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.

The Department of Justice has announced that a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges alleging threats to harm President Donald Trump. Whatever the ultimate merits, the case is immediately significant because it combines a high-profile defendant, allegations involving threats against a sitting or former president, and the likelihood of fast-moving appellate and procedural litigation.

For legal professionals, this is the kind of prosecution that will be watched as closely for its procedural posture as for its political implications.

The Ninth Circuit’s May 7, 2026 civil opinion by Judge McKeown appears to be a useful procedural decision for litigators focused on preserving issues for appeal and understanding the scope of appellate review. Although the docket entry does not itself provide the full factual background, the opinion is notable because the court addresses core appellate principles that frequently determine whether a party can obtain relief at all.

At a high level, the court reaffirmed that appellate review is constrained by the record developed below, the arguments actually presented to the district court, and the applicable standard of review.

ATT Services, Inc. has launched a new inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing IPR2026-00349 on May 5, 2026. At this early stage, the proceeding is notable less for any merits ruling and more for what it signals: another major operating company turning to the PTAB as part of a broader patent-defense playbook.

Based on the case caption, ATT Services, Inc. is the petitioner.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution in IPR2026-00146, concluding that the petitioner met the threshold showing required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. At the institution stage, that is the key question, and the Board found the petition sufficiently supported to move forward to a full trial on patentability.

Although an institution decision is not a final merits ruling, it is often a significant signal.

Former FBI Director James Comey has made his first court appearance in a criminal case alleging he made a threat against former President Donald Trump, launching what could become a closely watched test of how federal prosecutors prove criminal intent in politically charged speech cases.

The prosecution, styled US v. James Comey, Jr., is drawing unusual scrutiny not only because of Comey’s public profile, but because it lands squarely at the fault line between criminal threats law and First Amendment protections.