Briefly
Live preview · United States

Legal and Regulatory intelligence for you

Legal News
United States
Case Law

Center for Biological Diversity: EPA Dicamba Approval Lobbyists Lawsuit Seeks Records

The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the EPA for public records related to the reapproval of dicamba, a controversial pesticide. The lawsuit alleges that former industry lobbyists, now EPA officials, influenced the dicamba reapproval process.

17 Sept
United States
Legal News

University of Austin: Unaccredited Law School Plans Challenge ABA

The University of Austin, co-founded by Bari Weiss and Joe Lonsdale, is reportedly planning a new law school amidst growing challenges to the American Bar Association's (ABA) long-standing authority over legal education accreditation in the United States. This development signals a potential paradigm shift in legal education and professional regulation in the U.S., moving towards a less centralized accreditation model. For practitioners, the emergence of unaccredited or alternatively accredited law schools could impact bar admission requirements, reciprocity across states, and the perceived quality and marketability of graduates. It also raises questions about consumer protection for prospective students and the maintenance of professional standards within the legal field, potentially leading to a more diverse but also more fragmented landscape of legal training. The American Bar Association (ABA) has historically been the primary accrediting body for law schools in the United States, a role recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and generally required for graduates to sit for state bar examinations. The excerpt highlights recent challenges to this authority from various entities: states (like Texas) ceasing to respect ABA accreditation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) scrutinizing its impact on tuition, and the Department of Education recommending a review of its federal recognition. This regulatory pressure could lead to significant changes in the Higher Education Act and state bar admission rules, which currently rely heavily on ABA accreditation. Key parties include the American Bar Association (ABA), the University of Austin (founded by Bari Weiss and Joe Lonsdale), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Department of Education, and various states, notably Texas. The Federalist Society is also mentioned in the title, implying a philosophical alignment, though its direct involvement in the University of Austin's law school planning is not detailed in the excerpt. Attorneys, particularly those involved in legal education, bar admissions, or regulatory compliance, should closely monitor legislative and regulatory developments concerning law school accreditation. The potential for a more diverse accreditation landscape means that future bar applicants might come from institutions with different accreditation statuses, requiring state bar associations to re-evaluate their eligibility criteria. Firms hiring new associates should also be aware of the accreditation status of their candidates' law schools and how this might affect their ability to practice in various jurisdictions. The outcome of the University of Austin's law school plans or the broader regulatory challenges to the ABA's authority is not reported in this excerpt.

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

Mark Schell: 10th Circuit Hears Oklahoma Bar Membership Challenge

Oklahoma attorney Mark Schell is challenging the mandatory membership requirement of the Oklahoma Bar Association in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Schell argues that forced membership violates his First Amendment right to free association, citing objectionable content published in the bar's jou

17 Sept
United States
Legal News

Jeff Clark: New Law Firm Disbarment Recommendation

Jeff Clark, a former U.S. Department of Justice official, has announced the formation of a new law firm while simultaneously awaiting a decision from the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding a recommendation for his disbarment. This development carries profound legal significance for the U.S. legal profession, particularly concerning attorney ethics, professional regulation, and the jurisdictional boundaries of disciplinary authority. The establishment of a new firm by an attorney facing disbarment proceedings highlights the tension between an individual's right to pursue a livelihood and the bar's imperative to uphold professional standards and protect the public. Furthermore, the reported challenge by the Department of Justice to the local bar's authority to regulate the profession introduces a complex federalism question, potentially impacting how attorney discipline is administered, especially for those with federal government experience. The outcome of this matter could set important precedents regarding the scope of state bar disciplinary power over federal actors and the interpretation of rules concerning professional conduct. The legal context is primarily centered on attorney disciplinary proceedings, which are governed by the rules of professional conduct adopted by state supreme courts, in this instance, the D.C. Court of Appeals. The excerpt explicitly references a probe by the D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a finding of a violation against the rule against dishonesty, and a recommendation for disbarment. These proceedings are quasi-judicial, designed to ensure due process while safeguarding the integrity of the legal profession. The Department of Justice's challenge to the D.C. Bar's authority could involve arguments related to federal supremacy, the separation of powers, or the specific jurisdiction of state bar associations over former federal employees, potentially leading to significant litigation and clarification of regulatory frameworks. The key parties involved are Jeff Clark, the D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Senate Judiciary Committee (which initiated the complaint), and the U.S. Department of Justice. The practitioner takeaway for attorneys is to closely monitor the progression and ultimate resolution of Jeff Clark's disciplinary case and the Department of Justice's challenge. This situation could significantly influence the landscape of attorney disciplinary enforcement, particularly for those who have served in federal capacities, and may lead to revised interpretations or applications of ethical rules, especially those pertaining to honesty and professional conduct. Firms and individual practitioners should review their internal ethics compliance protocols and remain informed about any developments that could reshape the regulatory environment for legal professionals across jurisdictions.

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

Eighth Circuit: Missouri Congressional Map Likely to Reach Supreme Court Again

Missouri's gerrymandered congressional map, designed for a 7-1 GOP advantage, is likely headed for a third review by the U.S. Supreme Court following an expedited Eighth Circuit ruling. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, elected in 2024, rejected over 300,000 petition signatures for a referendum on t

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

Dodgers Owner Mark Walter: Annuity Lawsuit Alleges Billions in Hidden Investments

Ira Rosner filed a class-action lawsuit against Delaware Life Insurance Co. and entities tied to Dodgers owner Mark Walter, alleging concealment of related-party investments and inflated annuity values. Delaware Life initially reported 3% (~$1.4 billion) in related-party investments but later reveal

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Hannah Dugan Law License Not Suspended

The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided not to suspend former Judge Hannah Dugan's law license. Dugan was convicted of obstructing federal agents after helping a man evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in April 2025.

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

SCOTUS: DHS SAVE Voter Rolls Database Use Fully Briefed

The United States Supreme Court is expected to imminently issue a decision regarding the Trump administration's request to use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to identify noncitizens on state voter rolls, following the filing of a response by challenging groups. This pending decision holds significant implications for election integrity, privacy rights, and the balance of power between federal and state authorities in managing voter registration. The proposed use of a federal database to purge state voter rolls raises questions about potential disenfranchisement, data accuracy, and the scope of federal oversight in state electoral processes. For practitioners, the outcome will clarify the permissible extent of federal data utilization in state-level election administration and could set precedents for future challenges to voter registration practices. The article also highlights the Supreme Court's recent actions in other high-profile cases, including the denial of a stay of execution for LeJames Norman in Texas and its repeated refusal to allow Missouri to implement a new congressional map, underscoring the Court's active role in diverse areas of law. The primary legal context for the database issue involves federal statutes governing voter registration, such as the National Voter Registration Act, state election laws, and potentially constitutional challenges related to voting rights (e.g., 14th and 15th Amendments) and due process. The SAVE database is a federal tool, and its proposed use in state voter roll maintenance implicates federalism principles. The Missouri congressional map dispute involves redistricting law, likely under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and potentially the Voting Rights Act, and the procedural interplay between the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts, specifically the 8th Circuit. The execution denial falls under criminal procedure and Eighth Amendment considerations regarding cruel and unusual punishment. These cases collectively demonstrate the Supreme Court's broad jurisdiction over constitutional and statutory interpretation across various legal domains. Key parties involved include the United States Supreme Court; the Trump administration, specifically the Department of Homeland Security; the groups challenging the use of the SAVE database; the state of Missouri and its Republican officials; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; and LeJames Norman. Legal experts like Justin Levitt are also cited for their commentary on the practical implications of the ongoing legal battles. Attorneys specializing in election law, constitutional law, and administrative law should closely monitor the Supreme Court's decision on the SAVE database, as it will define the boundaries for federal data use in state election administration. For those involved in redistricting litigation, the Missouri case illustrates the Supreme Court's willingness to intervene early to prevent the implementation of potentially unconstitutional maps, even while allowing lower court proceedings to continue. The denial of a stay of execution serves as a reminder of the finality and gravity of capital punishment cases. Practitioners should advise clients on the potential for increased scrutiny of voter rolls and the ongoing legal battles over electoral processes, emphasizing the need for vigilance regarding voting rights and election integrity.

17 Sept
United States
Case Law

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Attorney Rapkin Disciplinary Decision

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision on September 17, 2026, in *Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephanie G. Rapkin*, concerning disciplinary proceedings against attorney Stephanie G. Rapkin. This case, identified by the citation 2026 WI 31 and case number 2024AP2265-D, involves the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) as the complainant and Ms. Rapkin as the respondent attorney. The excerpt does not report the specific outcome or details of the disciplinary action taken by the court. This decision holds significant legal importance for the Wisconsin legal community, as it represents the state's highest court exercising its inherent authority over attorney professional conduct. Such rulings are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, upholding ethical standards, and protecting the public interest. Disciplinary actions by the Supreme Court serve as authoritative interpretations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and establish precedents for how similar misconduct will be addressed in the future, influencing the behavior and practices of all attorneys in the state. The legal context for this matter is the comprehensive framework governing attorney professional responsibility in Wisconsin, primarily articulated in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR) and the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) is the state agency responsible for investigating allegations of attorney misconduct and prosecuting disciplinary actions, often initiating proceedings that culminate in review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in Wisconsin, has ultimate jurisdiction over attorney admissions and discipline, making its decisions in these matters final and binding. For practicing attorneys in Wisconsin, the key takeaway is the imperative to closely monitor and understand the implications of OLR disciplinary actions and Supreme Court decisions in this area. These cases provide vital guidance on the boundaries of acceptable professional conduct, the potential consequences of ethical breaches, and the OLR's enforcement priorities. Attorneys should regularly review such decisions to ensure their practices align with the highest ethical standards and to avoid conduct that could lead to disciplinary proceedings. The specific outcome or details of the disciplinary action against Ms. Rapkin are not reported in this excerpt.

17 Sept