Federal courts

The US Supreme Court has ruled that states may use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship status of voters, a decision with direct implications for election administration. Supporters say the tool helps states maintain accurate voter rolls, while critics warn it could lead to eligible voters being wrongly flagged or purged ahead of elections.

A U.S. appeals court has upheld the government's designation of AI company Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a decision with major implications for the Pentagon's ability to work with the firm. The ruling reinforces federal authority to restrict AI providers deemed security concerns from defense-related procurement, and is being closely watched across the tech and defense industries for what it signals about oversight of leading artificial intelligence companies.

A US judge has overturned President Trump's ban on certain media outlets from White House coverage. The ruling blocks the administration from excluding journalists from presidential events, a move critics called an attack on press freedom. Supporters of the president are expected to challenge the decision, and the case is likely to move through the appeals courts, keeping the fight over media access in the spotlight.

A federal court fight over the Trump administration's exclusion of certain media outlets from the White House is drawing intense attention, with legal analysts arguing that the President's position has shifted dramatically as the case unfolds. The dispute centers on whether the administration can control which news organizations get access to the press pool, raising First Amendment concerns.

A coalition of news organizations has asked a federal court to bar the White House from enforcing a ban on access for certain journalists. The legal challenge argues the administration's restrictions violate press freedom protections, and the case is drawing wide attention as a test of limits on government control over media access.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he hopes any guardrails on artificial intelligence remain voluntary, a stance that highlights Congress's continued inaction on AI legislation. The remarks come as lawmakers have passed no comprehensive federal AI rules, leaving regulation largely to states, courts and companies themselves. Critics argue voluntary measures leave the public exposed to AI risks, while industry favors a lighter touch.

A federal judge has ordered the White House to respond by 12:30 PM regarding its non-compliance with a press-related court order. The development marks an escalation in an ongoing legal dispute over press access, and the deadline is expected to reveal whether the administration will comply with the court's directives.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is calling on Congress to fully fund the security funding request for the U.S. Supreme Court. The request would provide additional resources to protect the justices and the Court itself. Jackley's appeal adds a state-level voice to ongoing debates in Washington over security spending for federal institutions and officials.

Several news organisations barred from White House access are asking a federal judge to extend a court order blocking the administration from enforcing the ban. The outlets argue the restrictions amount to unconstitutional retaliation against coverage the White House dislikes, while administration lawyers defend the move as a lawful exercise of control over presidential events. A ruling on the extended block is expected imminently.

A court ruling means El Paso County will continue receiving anti-terrorism grant money without having to make changes to how it runs its elections. The decision resolves a dispute over whether federal homeland security funding to the Texas county was tied to election-related conditions. Local officials had been awaiting the outcome, and the ruling allows the funding stream to continue unchanged while attention on election administration remains high.

A second federal court has struck down New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, the law requiring large fossil fuel companies to pay billions for past climate damages. The ruling marks another legal setback for the state's attempt to make polluters fund climate adaptation costs. It is likely to fuel ongoing national debate over whether states can impose retroactive climate liability on energy companies.

Recent court victories for the 'Solar for All' program are prompting discussion about what they mean for litigation brought by grantee organizations. The program, which funds solar projects in low-income communities, scored wins in legal challenges, but analysts are weighing how these outcomes shape future lawsuits involving program grantees and whether the legal strategy will continue to protect federal clean energy funding.

A federal appeals court has ruled that Seattle's diversity, equity and inclusion initiative may have created a hostile work environment, reviving the legal challenge against the city's program. The Ninth Circuit's finding means the case can move forward, and the ruling is likely to fuel the wider national debate over whether workplace DEI programs can themselves amount to unlawful discrimination against employees.

New York has entered a court case concerning commercial driver's licenses involving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The dispute centers on federal authority over CDL rules, with New York now weighing in as the case moves forward. The outcome could affect how licensing requirements for truck and bus drivers are enforced between states and the federal government.

A federal appeals court has declined to pause sanctions imposed on lawyers who represented Donald Trump in litigation over the IRS settlement case. The ruling means the penalties against the attorneys remain in effect while the underlying appeal proceeds. The decision adds to the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding Trump's legal team and its conduct in court filings.

A federal judge has upheld an Idaho law that prohibits daycares from requiring vaccines or other medical treatments as a condition of enrollment. The ruling means childcare facilities in the state cannot enforce immunization or medical treatment requirements on children. Supporters frame the law as protecting parental choice over children's medical decisions, while public health advocates warn it could weaken protections against outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in childcare settings.