Federal Court

A US judge has ruled against President Trump's ban on certain media outlets from White House coverage, overturning the restriction. The decision restores access for the affected news organisations and touches on press freedom and the limits of presidential power over media access. The ruling is drawing wide attention as a significant check on the administration's handling of the press.

A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration's ban blocking certain reporters from White House press access. CNN reported the decision, which means the affected journalists must be allowed back into official briefings and events. Supporters of the ruling see it as a win for press freedom and the First Amendment, while critics of judicial intervention are pushing back. The case is one of several legal battles over the administration's treatment of the media.

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for states to use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship status of people registering to vote. The decision lets states check voter rolls against immigration records, a move supporters frame as election integrity and critics warn could disenfranchise eligible voters, fueling debate over voting access.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration can, for the time being, use its revamped federal voter eligibility database. The decision allows federal officials to proceed with the system while legal challenges continue in lower courts. Multiple major outlets, including the Associated Press, are reporting the ruling, which comes amid ongoing disputes over election integrity measures and state voter roll maintenance.

A Supreme Court ruling involving a disputed election may conflict with state law, according to reporting from Hawaii. The decision raises questions about how election disputes should be resolved when federal judicial rulings and state statutes diverge. Observers are watching for potential legal challenges and clarification on which authority prevails in administering elections.

Maine Senator Susan Collins is running her first campaign since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, a decision her 2018 confirmation vote for Justice Brett Kavanaugh helped make possible. Abortion has become a central issue in her reelection race, with opponents arguing her vote enabled the rollback of Roe v. Wade, while Collins defends her record in a state that has backed abortion rights protections.

A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, warning Attorney General Pam Bondi that contempt charges could follow if the department continues to withhold them. The order describes contempt as 'premature' for now, but signals the court is losing patience with the DOJ's stalling on the disclosures.

A federal judge has ordered the White House to respond by 12:30 PM to allegations that it failed to comply with a court order concerning press access. The deadline sets up a rapid test of whether the administration will follow the ruling, and the story is drawing heavy attention as a fresh flashpoint in ongoing disputes between the administration and the press corps over First Amendment access.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is pressing the DC Circuit to vacate a federal drone flight restriction that effectively criminalized aerial recording of immigration agents. The group argues the restriction blocks journalists and the public from documenting enforcement operations, raising First Amendment concerns. Commenters online are debating the balance between airspace security and the right to observe government agents at work.

A U.S. appeals court has upheld the government's designation of AI company Anthropic as a supply chain risk, according to a CNBC report. The ruling maintains a decision tied to Pentagon-related concerns over the company's role in federal supply chains. The designation is significant for the AI sector, as it could affect Anthropic's ability to win government contracts and signals heightened scrutiny of major AI providers in national security contexts.

CNN has returned to the White House press pool after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore the network's access, which had been revoked earlier. The ruling marks a significant check on presidential control over press credentials, and the network is covering its reinstatement closely as debate continues over press freedom and the limits of executive power.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of patents covering internet advertising technology owned by a party challenging Google. The court found the claims ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act, which governs whether inventions are patentable subject matter. The decision is being closely watched by intellectual property practitioners, as it adds to the line of Federal Circuit rulings limiting software and business-method patents in the digital advertising space.

A judge has ordered a pause on construction of an ICE detention facility in Gilroy, California, citing environmental concerns. The ruling temporarily stops the project while environmental review issues are addressed, adding another legal setback to federal immigration detention expansion efforts in the Bay Area.

A member of Congress says they were denied access to a new, secretive immigration courtroom operating in Manhattan. The reported refusal has raised questions about transparency in immigration proceedings and why a federal courtroom would be closed to oversight, including to elected officials seeking to observe its operations firsthand.

A federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the revival of the $7 billion Solar for All program, which the Trump administration had canceled. The program funded solar energy projects aimed at low-income and disadvantaged communities across the United States. The ruling means the administration must restart the program while related legal challenges over the cancellation move forward.

A high court has ruled that election officials may use a federal database to help identify and remove ineligible voters from registration rolls. The decision clarifies the legality of cross-checking voter records against federal data, a practice that has drawn debate between those who see it as protecting election integrity and those concerned about wrongful removals of eligible voters.

The Trump administration cancelled a $7 billion solar energy grant program, but a federal judge in Rhode Island has now ordered the program restored. The ruling is a setback for the administration's effort to roll back renewable energy funding and a win for states and organizations relying on those solar grants. Supporters of clean energy are highlighting the decision as a check on executive power over congressionally funded climate programs.

A federal court has ruled that Tennessee cannot criminalize speech about topics its Republican supermajority and attorney general deem objectionable, and cannot enforce its abortion ban beyond state lines to regulate lawful conduct elsewhere. The ruling blocks the state from penalizing adults who help minors obtain abortions out of state, drawing attention from reproductive rights advocates and legal observers.

A federal appeals court has sided with Hawaii, upholding the state's requirements that gun permit applicants complete the process within a set window and that authorities can inspect firearms registered to permit holders. The ruling keeps in place two of Hawaii's strict firearms provisions, which are among the toughest in the United States, as legal battles over the scope of Second Amendment protections continue across the country.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Ohio can regulate Kalshi's sports event contracts, a win for state regulators who argue the prediction-market platform is effectively offering sports betting. The decision could shape how prediction markets operate nationwide, as states push back against federal oversight claims and Kalshi continues expanding its sports contracts.

A 67-year-old Texas man has been sentenced for mailing threatening letters to federal judges, according to the San Antonio Express-News. The case adds to ongoing concerns about threats and intimidation directed at members of the judiciary in the United States, which have drawn increased attention from law enforcement and court officials in recent years.