Press Credentials Dispute

​The lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW and Politico against President Trump over him banning them from the White House Press Pool had its first victory. On September 24, a Trump appointed judge by the name of Timothy Kelly ruled that due process protections under the 14th Amendment were not given to the outlets. Kelly order that the press credentials for 78 journalists must be restored for 14 days pending review. Judge Kelly did not rule on the broader 1st Amendment claim that is still ongoing.

​The administration justified the ban by claiming the networks "purposely write negative news", failed to maintain professional standards, and posed a "national security risk" by allegedly publishing sensitive information and falsehoods. The Department of Justice claimed that access to the White House was a "privilege, not a right," and that the president can restrict access however he pleases.

​The three blacklisted outlets argued that the ban represents unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and directly violated the 1st and 14th Amendment.

​The press passes for the journalists were claimed to have been restored the same day of the ruling and the parties are expected back in court in October for further argument.

​Surrogacy and Custody Battle

​September 22, the Supreme Court declined a request from a surrogate that is fighting for custody of a baby boy that had been born with a serious heart defect and refused to insert itself in a complex legal battle that has become ensnared in a broader national debate over abortion and surrogacy.

​McKenna West, a nurse from Alaska, carried the child for Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar. When an early scan found a life-threatening condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, Ahmed and Gilkar opted for West to have an abortion. But West declined, deciding instead to seek refuge in Texas to give birth. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican candidate for the open Senate seat in Texas this year, intervened on behalf of West to secure a court order requiring medical treatment for the baby; he later withdrew from the case.

​Ahmed and Gilkar claimed in a California court that West violated the surrogacy contract and they were recognized as the child’s legal parents by the court. On September 9, West urged the Supreme Court to step in and pause the state court order to give her time to continue fighting in federal court.

​Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency cases rising from California, denied the request without explanation. Because Kagan did not formally refer the case to the entire court, there were no noted dissents. It is not clear if Kagan even asked her colleagues regarding the matter.

​The boy, born on August 12, has already undergone one surgery with more likely to come. Without treatment, hypoplastic left heart syndrome can lead to death within days or weeks. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surgery was necessary for his immediate survival and a heart transplant may be needed in the future.

​Media Industry Antitrust Settlement

​September 21, Paramount reached a settlement with state attorneys general that would allow its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to move forward. The settlement marks an end to a months-long legal battle that began in February when Paramount won a bidding war against Netflix to buy Warner. This settlement clears the largest hurdle for the merger.

​A dozen Democratic-led states including New York and Colorado sued in July to block the deal on antitrust grounds. The attorneys general argued that the combination of Paramount and Warner would create too much concentration in the markets for theatrical films and television channels.

​The Writers Guild of America sued as well, claiming that the merger of the legacy media companies would kill jobs and career opportunities for Hollywood screenwriters at a time when the film and television production economy is already under pressure.

​The settlement stops short of forcing Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison to make significant structural changes to the company, but includes penalties such as the forced sale of cable channels and Paramount’s stake in Miramax if it doesn’t make good on its promises. Paramount pledged to release at least 30 films per year for five years. If it doesn’t do so, it would have to divest its stake in Miramax and pay $30 million per missed film, the majority of which would go to supporting workers.

​It also agreed to invest at least $1.5 billion more in domestic production over the next five years and commit funds for a workforce-training program for the entertainment industry. While the company didn’t have to agree to remain in California as part of the settlement, it said it would keep Warner’s and Paramount’s Los Angeles studio lots for movie production.

​Immigration Policy Appeals

​On September 24, the Department of Homeland Security asked the US Supreme Court to halt the block on third party deportations instituted by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on September 18.

​In February 2026, a federal district judge ruled that the third-country deportation policy was unlawful. The Trump administration appealed, and on March 16, the First Circuit granted a temporary "stay pending appeal”, effectively grounding the third-party deportation flights.

​The Trump administration argues that third-country removals are an "essential tool" to deport dangerous individuals with final removal orders, especially when their home countries refuse to accept them or when U.S. law prevents them from being sent home due to domestic persecution. The administration claims that individuals are only sent to nations that have provided "credible assurances" to the Secretary of State that the deportees will not face torture or persecution.

​Under the challenged policy memos, immigration officials could deport individuals with as little as six hours' notice. Plaintiffs argue this makes it entirely impossible for migrants to access legal counsel or raise safety concerns. Advocates presented evidence that individuals were being sent to highly unstable regions, such as South Sudan, Uganda, and the Central African Republic, where they have zero cultural or familial ties and likely do not speak the country's langauge. They cited instances where deportees faced immediate kidnapping, violence, or severe harm upon arrival without opportunity to state their fears to a judge.

​The three-panel appeal court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the Department of Homeland Security's guidelines unlawfully bypassed required minimum protections. They stated that the government cannot run rapid removals to unfamiliar third countries without providing effective notice and a genuine platform for their targets to claim their safety was in jeopardy if removed to them. Ultimately they ruled to halt the flights for the time being while SCOTUS decides whether they wish to weigh in.

​Voting Rights and Driver's License Regulations

​In Red Wine & Blue v. LaRose, plaintiffs challenge Ohio House Bill 54, which requires people applying for or renewing a driver's license at the BMV to show proof of citizenship before they can register to vote. They argue that the state requirement violates the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by demanding more than the "minimum amount of information necessary" to register.

​The defendant, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, stated that his office would defend the state's authority to ensure election integrity. Supporters like the Honest Elections Project argue the NVRA does not stop states from verifying eligibility.

​On September 23, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the lower-court block by U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. in August. This ruling allows the proof-of-citizenship requirement to remain in effect for the upcoming midterm elections while the broader legal battle continues.

​Mandatory Detention Rulings

​In Cunha v. Freden, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on April 28, 2026, that long-term undocumented residents who entered the country years ago are entitled to bond hearings instead of mandatory detention.

​The petitioner, Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha is a Brazilian national who has lived in the United States for over 20 years. The Department of Homeland Security detained him, on September 26th, 2025, under a policy that treats anyone who entered without inspection as subject to mandatory detention without a bond.

​The Second Circuit agreed with the lower court and held that undocumented immigrants that entered the country “long ago" fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires discretionary detention with bond eligibility, and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires mandatory detention. The court explained that while these individuals are applicants for admission, they are not actively seeking entry at the border; a distinction that would alter their detention.

​On September 25, the Second Circuit did not grant an “en banc" rehearing to review its original decision. This allowed the original ruling from April 28, 2026 to stand until SCOTUS determines if it will hear the case along with two other similar cases, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi in the 5th Circuit and Avila v. Bondi in the 8th Circuit.

​Defense Contracting and AI Guardrails

​On September 25, the DC Circuit court rejected Anthropic's challenge to the Department of Defense exclusion of Anthropic's AI from the DoD's supply chain on a 2-1 vote. The court asserted that the government maintains broad legal leeway when identifying software platforms that refuse to strip built-in guardrails or code restrictions demanded by military leadership.

​Starting early in the second Trump administration, Anthropic contracted with the military to provide its Claude AI model for intelligence and operational planning. However, the company refused to allow its technology to power lethal autonomous weapons without human oversight or be used for the mass domestic surveillance of Americans. The decision by Anthropic caused much strife between them and the administration.

​In February 2026, after months of stalemate with Anthropic, President Donald Trump ordered agencies to stop using their tech. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security," and barred any federal contractors from associating or doing business with the company.

​In return, Anthropic sued the administration at the DC District Court of Appeals using the statutory framework under Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) to claim that the government overstepped their authority to bypass the usual contract cancellation procedures. The FASCSA framework specifically designates federal courts of appeals, as opposed to a district court, to handle direct reviews of such national security blacklisting.

​Anthropic opted to split this case from the broader 1st and 5th Amendment case that was assigned to the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The California court focused heavily on whether the government used the "national security risk" designation to punish Anthropic for its stance on AI guardrails. In August, they ruled that while the DoD could not be forced to use their products, it did rule that it could not force contractors to not use them.

​Judicial Contempt and Deportation Enforcement

​On September 25, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher found the government in contempt for violating three previous court orders by removing class member ELA to El Salvador. The government was ordered to refrain from executing final removal orders on ELA until USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) issues a final determination on his asylum application beginning in 2019.

​Judge Gallagher found that the federal government violated orders on three separate occasions by deporting ELA twice before USCIS finished processing his asylum claim. In the most recent order, she mandated that ELA be returned to the US and reunited with his belongings. She also emphasized that any future removals on ELA would halt until his asylum application was reviewed and decided upon.

​August 7 was the second time this year that ELA was deported to El Salvador, which the administration later claimed was due to a miscommunication. ELA refused to come back to the US unless he was given specific protections on his asylum application status to ensure he wasn't rejected after he failed to show up for biometric screening last year.

​Gallagher also found the administration in contempt in July after it was alleged that multiple unaccompanied minors from the protected 2019 class action group had been wrongfully deported.