Briefly
Live preview · United States

Legal and Regulatory intelligence for you

Legal News
United States
Case Law

US District Court: Kalshi Iowa Prediction Market Preemption Denied

A federal judge in Iowa denied Kalshi's request for a preliminary injunction to block state regulation of its prediction market operations. Kalshi argued that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) federally preempts state gambling laws, but the court found this argument unlikely to succeed.

9 Sept
United States
Case Law

USDA: Federal Workers Sue Over Forced Relocations, Attrition

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a lawsuit in a federal court in San Francisco on Tuesday, alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) through an "arbitrary and capricious" reorganization plan involving office closures and forced relocations designed to push workers out. This case carries significant legal implications for federal agencies, employee unions, and the broader public. It highlights the potential for federal employee advocacy groups to challenge agency reorganization efforts that they perceive as undermining employee rights, agency effectiveness, or statutory mandates. For federal agencies, the lawsuit underscores the critical importance of procedural regularity, substantive rationality, and thorough impact assessments when implementing significant structural changes, especially those affecting a large workforce and critical public services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The plaintiffs' assertion that the USDA performed no assessment on how employee attrition could affect its mandated responsibilities is central to their claim of arbitrary and capricious action. The core legal framework for this dispute is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically its provisions that allow courts to review agency actions to determine if they are "arbitrary and capricious," an abuse of discretion, or otherwise "not in accordance with law." This standard of review requires agencies to demonstrate a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made, and to consider all relevant factors. The lawsuit also implicitly raises questions about the constitutional and statutory authority of federal agencies and their secretaries to implement such sweeping changes. The case is being heard in a federal court, indicating it falls under federal question jurisdiction. The key parties involved are the plaintiffs, primarily the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unnamed parties, representing federal workers. The defendants are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its secretary. The legal proceedings are taking place in a federal court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs are seeking a judicial finding that the USDA and its secretary have exceeded their authority and an injunction to stop the office closures and forced relocations. Practitioners advising federal agencies should counsel their clients on the absolute necessity of conducting comprehensive impact assessments, particularly concerning workforce attrition and the potential disruption of service delivery, before implementing any major reorganization. All agency actions must be meticulously documented, rationally justified, and demonstrably compliant with the APA's requirements to withstand judicial scrutiny. For attorneys representing federal employees or unions, this case provides a robust example of challenging agency actions that appear to disregard employee welfare or statutory obligations. Businesses and individuals who rely on USDA services should monitor this case closely for potential impacts on program administration and accessibility. The outcome of this matter is not yet reported.

9 Sept
United States
Case Law

Federal Judge Narrows Eli Lilly Mochi Health Lawsuit: California UCL Claims Advance

A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday further trimmed a lawsuit brought by Eli Lilly and Co. against Mochi Health, a telehealth company, and its pharmaceutical supplier, partially dismissing claims under the Lanham Act while advancing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. This ruling carries significant implications for pharmaceutical companies, telehealth providers, and compounding pharmacies, as it clarifies the legal avenues available to challenge the sale of compounded versions of patented drugs. The partial dismissal of Lanham Act claims against certain defendants, while allowing California UCL claims to proceed, highlights the distinct elements and evidentiary burdens under federal trademark and unfair competition law versus state-specific consumer protection statutes. It also touches upon the "corporate practice of medicine" doctrine, a critical regulatory area for telehealth companies, particularly regarding their relationship with physicians and diagnostic protocols. The case underscores the ongoing tension between pharmaceutical innovators protecting their intellectual property and market share, and entities offering more accessible or affordable compounded alternatives. The legal context involves federal intellectual property and unfair competition law, specifically the Lanham Act, which governs trademark infringement and false advertising. The court's decision to dismiss certain Lanham Act claims suggests that Eli Lilly may have faced challenges in plausibly alleging false advertising or trademark infringement under federal standards for those specific defendants. Conversely, the advancement of claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) indicates that the court found plausible allegations of "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices" under state law, potentially including violations related to the corporate practice of medicine. The case is being heard in a federal court, U.S. District Court, by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, a Joe Biden appointee. The key parties involved are the plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Co., a major pharmaceutical company. The defendants include Mochi Health, a telehealth company that sells compounded versions of tirzepatide drugs like Zepbound and Mounjaro, its medical entities known as Mochi Medical, and its pharmaceutical supplier, Aequita Pharmacy, along with its parent company, Aequita Corporation. U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley is presiding over the case. Practitioners advising pharmaceutical companies should note the nuanced application of the Lanham Act versus state unfair competition laws in challenging compounded drug sales, and understand that different legal frameworks may offer varying degrees of success depending on the specific allegations. For telehealth providers and compounding pharmacies, this ruling emphasizes the critical importance of strict compliance with all state regulations, including those related to the corporate practice of medicine, and careful review of all advertising and marketing claims to avoid allegations of misleading consumers or engaging in unfair business practices. All parties should understand the distinct elements required to sustain claims under different legal frameworks. The outcome of this matter is not yet reported, as the case is still in the litigation phase.

9 Sept
United States
Case Law

States Accuse Education Dept Grant Order Defiance

A coalition of 15 states is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the U.S. Education Department from canceling school mental health grants. This legal action follows a temporary restraining order issued in July by Judge Kymberly Evanson, blocking previous attempts to cut funding.

9 Sept
United States
Case Law

Kavanaugh Blocks Missouri Congressional Map for 2026 Election

Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday blocked Missouri from using a new congressional map intended to aid Republicans in the November elections, by turning down a request from the state's top election official to pause a Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Acting in his capacity for the 8th Circuit, Justice Kavanaugh denied an emergency application from Missouri's Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins, which sought to implement a new congressional map, known as HB 1. This map was designed to create a 7-1 Republican advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives for the state, but its deployment had been barred by a prior ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interim docket order effectively ensures that the 2022 congressional map will remain in place for the upcoming 2026 elections, despite efforts by the state to redraw districts following the 2020 census and a subsequent petition for a statewide referendum. The excerpt does not report the specific grounds for the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling. This decision by a single Supreme Court Justice, while on the interim docket, carries significant weight as it likely resolves the congressional map dispute for Missouri for the 2026 election cycle. It underscores the critical role of state supreme courts in adjudicating challenges to redistricting plans and the limited circumstances under which the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes in such matters, particularly through emergency applications. For political parties and advocacy groups, it highlights the ongoing legal battles over gerrymandering and the impact of judicial review on electoral outcomes. The rejection of the state's request also signals a potential reluctance by the Supreme Court to disturb state court rulings on redistricting without a compelling federal question or clear error. The legal framework involves both state and federal constitutional principles related to redistricting, particularly the "one person, one vote" doctrine derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, though the excerpt doesn't specify the grounds of the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling. State laws govern the process of drawing congressional districts and the procedures for citizen-initiated referendums, as seen with the petition submitted by Richard von Glahn and others. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction over emergency appeals, often referred to as the "shadow docket," allows individual justices to rule on urgent requests from their assigned circuits. This case involves the interplay between state judicial authority (Missouri Supreme Court) and federal judicial oversight (Justice Kavanaugh's role), particularly concerning electoral maps that can significantly influence the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. The reference to the 2020 census indicates the decennial requirement for states to redraw districts based on population changes. The primary judicial actor is Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court. The state of Missouri, specifically its top election official, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, was the applicant seeking to implement the new map. The Missouri Supreme Court issued the underlying ruling that barred the new map's use. Richard von Glahn is identified as a plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court and an opponent of the new map, having led a petition effort. The new map, HB 1, was enacted by the state legislature, and its redrawing was encouraged by President Donald Trump. Attorneys involved in election law, constitutional law, or legislative affairs should closely monitor the evolving jurisprudence around redistricting, particularly the standards applied by state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to emergency applications in these politically charged cases. Businesses and political organizations should understand that state-level judicial decisions can have immediate and lasting impacts on electoral landscapes, influencing policy and legislative priorities. The outcome of this specific matter, while not a full Supreme Court merits decision, indicates the difficulty in overturning state court rulings on redistricting through emergency applications, especially when the state court has found issues with the proposed map. Practitioners should advise clients on the robust legal challenges that can arise from redistricting efforts and the importance of adhering to both state and federal constitutional requirements.

8 Sept
United States
Case Law

DC Circuit: IRS-ICE Data Sharing Unlawful, Violates Taxpayer Privacy

A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that a data sharing agreement between the IRS and ICE, allowing mass requests for immigrant addresses, was illegal. The court upheld a federal judge's injunction, preventing further disclosures after over 47,000 records were unlawfully shared by the IRS.

8 Sept
United States
Case Law

Judge Chhabria: CDC Vaccine Schedule Lawsuit Advances

On Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco partially denied the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit, allowing plaintiff states to challenge the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recent actions stripping universally recommended status from seven childhood vaccines, including the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the plaintiff states have standing to challenge the CDC's sweeping changes to the childhood immunization schedule, specifically citing the elimination of the recommendation for the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. The judge found that the states plausibly alleged these decisions would likely increase the cost of operating state healthcare programs and impose administrative burdens. However, claims relating to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s replacement of members on a vaccine advisory committee were dismissed. The CDC had dropped the recommendation for a universal hepatitis B birth dose in December and, on January 5, demoted other recommended childhood vaccines based on recommendations from Kennedy's newly appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice. The outcome of the broader lawsuit on its merits is not yet reported. This ruling carries significant legal implications for public health policy, federal agency authority, and state autonomy. It establishes that states may have a viable legal avenue to challenge federal health recommendations that directly impact their budgets and administrative structures, particularly when those recommendations alter established public health practices. The judiciary's willingness to review executive agency decisions in this context underscores the potential for legal challenges to influence national health guidelines and the implementation of public health programs. For practitioners, this case highlights the ongoing tension between federal guidance and state-level implementation, especially in areas with substantial financial and operational consequences for states. The legal context for this matter primarily involves the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs judicial review of federal agency actions, and the constitutional concept of standing, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete injury caused by the defendant's actions. Judge Chhabria's decision hinged on the plaintiff states' ability to show a plausible increase in healthcare costs and administrative burdens, thereby satisfying the standing requirement for the vaccine schedule claims. Key parties include U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, the unnamed plaintiff states, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his capacity as Health and Human Services Secretary, along with his appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice. The ruling is a procedural step, allowing certain claims to proceed, rather than a final judgment on the merits of the CDC's policy changes. Attorneys representing state governments, healthcare providers, or public health organizations should closely monitor the progression of this litigation. The ultimate outcome could set important precedents regarding the scope of federal health agencies' discretion and the ability of states to challenge such decisions. Businesses involved in vaccine development, distribution, or healthcare services should also be aware of potential shifts in recommended vaccine schedules and the legal battles surrounding them, as these could impact market dynamics and regulatory compliance. Practitioners should advise clients on the importance of understanding the interplay between federal health mandates, state-level implementation, and the potential for judicial oversight in this complex regulatory landscape.

8 Sept
United States
Case Law

Massachusetts Federal Court: USPS 2026 Mail-In Ballot Rule Blocked

A federal court in Massachusetts issued a renewed preliminary injunction. This injunction blocks the U.S. Postal Service from implementing its final order on handling mail-in ballots.

8 Sept
United States
Case Law

Third Circuit: Transco Pipeline Environmental Review Invalidated

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a water quality certification for Transco's Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline project. The court found the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by deferring critical monitoring and adaptive man

8 Sept