In a favorable development for healthcare providers, an Oregon federal court recently vacated certain U.S. Department of Health and Human Services restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, but the government's broader campaign against this care, including proposed rulemaking and agency investigations, leaves significant uncertainty, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

Nascent litigation matters against data center operators, set against limited government regulation and a growing body of public health research, suggests we may be on the cusp of an era of mass toxic tort claims, with a liability framework firmly rooted in precedent from other industries, says Benjamin Heller at RFZ Law.

The government’s recent oral arguments against birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara would have the Supreme Court use modern immigration classifications as markers for a constitutional boundary that is not expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, making the theory easier to administer but weaker as a matter of text and history, says attorney Tara Kennedy.

The First Circuit's recent ruling in Walsh v. HNTB, one of the first circuit-level applications of Muldrow's lowered adverse employment action threshold, indicates that performance improvement plans can remain on solid footing if they don't affect the terms of employment, says Sasha Thaler at Constangy.

The Third Circuit's recent decision in ASTM v. UpCodes, finding that republication of copyrighted building codes incorporated into binding law likely constitutes fair use, may help shape intellectual property strategy for standards organizations, rights holders and potentially even AI stakeholders, says Mitesh Patel at Reed Smith.

Watershed developments concerning prediction markets — such as the first insider trading charges, major speeches from U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission leadership, and the introduction of rulemaking and legislation — dominated the first quarter of 2026, a trend that will likely continue throughout the rest of the year, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

Recent state proxy voting laws have increasingly emphasized financial returns while intensifying scrutiny of proxy advisory firms and stewardship practices, creating new compliance challenges and risks, according to attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

Recent updates to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s membership application program should remind firm management to treat the filing process not as a compliance chore, but as a test of operational and regulatory readiness where they can anticipate and address FINRA's concerns, says Andrew Mount at Eversheds Sutherland.

Escalating tensions with Iran risk disrupting the energy and infrastructure inputs that support data center operations, raising insurance coverage concerns for operators affected by events far outside their physical footprints, say attorneys at McGuireWoods.

The government’s recent assertion that the plaintiffs in American Association of University Professors v. Department of Homeland Security lack standing to challenge the Trump administration’s pay-to-play immigration program does not address whether an agency can deem a million-dollar gift evidence of eligibility for immigration benefits carefully defined by Congress, says Jun Li at Reid & Wise.

Together, a Louisiana state court decision in WMH Farms v. Apache Corp. and an incoming statutory regime signal a sea change for legacy litigation in Louisiana, as courts make it harder to establish proof of contamination, and lawmakers narrow available remedies once contamination is proven, says Philip Wood at Jones Walker.

Recent statements of interest in patent litigation and a speech from a key U.S. Department of Justice official communicate the view that strong patent rights and competition policy are complementary, and offer important guidance for intellectual property practitioners and businesses navigating patent enforcement, standard‑setting and licensing, say attorneys at Wiley.

In the first test of S.B. 29's new ownership threshold requirement for shareholder actions, a Texas federal court recently dismissed Gusinsky v. Reynolds, a derivative action brought by a minority Southwest Airlines shareholder, offering key guidance for navigating the new Texas corporate litigation landscape, say attorneys at DLA Piper.

The recent incident involving Sullivan & Cromwell where citations in a filed motion were fabricated by artificial intelligence, as well as a punitive ruling from the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Farris, demonstrate that the obligation to supervise AI has belonged and always will belong to lawyers, says John Powell at the Kentucky School Boards Association.

A recently enacted New York law will require employers that are federally mandated to maintain first-aid supplies to now include an opioid antagonist, but being that it is subject to a complicated Occupational Safety and Health Administration analysis, employers face several unanswered compliance questions, say attorneys at Conn Maciel.

The recent decision in Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan v. Comerica is an important circuit-level addition to the growing trend of Ninth Circuit securities class action dismissals on loss causation grounds, which have used a contextual analysis premised on stock drops that are modest, typical and short-lived, say attorneys at Paul Weiss.

Three recent rulings illustrate that while internal investigations are a critical tool for managing workplace risk, the process itself must be able to withstand scrutiny, so employers should take steps to ensure that they're conducted with independence, credibility and trust to better defend their case, say attorneys at Krevolin Horst.

The California attorney general's amicus brief in Art Center v. WCE and the California Medical Association's response highlight how the California appeals court's ruling could significantly affect the structure and enforceability of succession arrangements in medical practice ownership, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

The second of two pathways for psychedelic drug access outlined in President Donald Trump's recent executive order constitutes an unprecedented expansion of the Right to Try Act, which could fundamentally alter the psychedelic access landscape while presenting significant regulatory, operational and legal challenges, say attorneys at Husch Blackwell.