Verdict . News

Federal Circuit

First Circuit Court of Appeals

First Circuit Hears Clemente Family Appeal Against Puerto Rico Officials

The sons of baseball Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente and their companies have appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging Puerto Rico's use of their father's name and image on commemorative license plates. The case involves multiple government officials and concerns proceeds funding a sports district that will replace an initiative originally conceived by Clemente and his wife.

•Clemente family companies and sons appeal district court ruling favoring Puerto Rico government

•Dispute involves unauthorized use of Roberto Clemente's name and image on commemorative license plates

Regulatory

•Supreme Court decided Bondi v. Vanderstok on March 26, 2025, addressing ATF regulation of ghost gun parts kits

Supreme Court Rules on Ghost Gun Regulations in Bondi v. Vanderstok

The Supreme Court issued a decision March 26, 2025, in *Bondi v. Vanderstok*, addressing whether unfinished firearm parts and weapon kits fall under federal gun control regulations. The case centers on the Gun Control Act of 1968's definition of 'firearm' and the ATF's 2022 rule covering partially complete frames and receivers.

•Case involves interpretation of Gun Control Act's definition of 'firearm' regarding unfinished weapon components

Jan 23, 2026•5 min read

•Supreme Court clarified application of VA's 'benefit-of-the-doubt' rule for veterans' PTSD disability claims

Supreme Court Rules on VA 'Benefit-of-the-Doubt' Rule in PTSD Cases

The Supreme Court issued a decision March 5, 2025, in Bufkin v. Collins addressing how the Department of Veterans Affairs applies its 'benefit-of-the-doubt' rule when evaluating veterans' claims for PTSD-related disability benefits. The case involved two veterans challenging VA denials of their service-connected PTSD claims.

•Case involved two veterans who challenged VA denials of their service-connected PTSD benefit requests

Federal Circuit

Jan 23, 2026•2 min read

•Supreme Court has issued a preliminary ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA, a major Clean Water Act case involving NPDES permit requirements

Supreme Court Issues Preliminary Ruling in San Francisco vs. EPA Clean Water Act Case

The Supreme Court has issued a preliminary ruling in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, a significant Clean Water Act case involving permit requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The preliminary decision addresses federal oversight of water pollution permits and could impact municipal wastewater management nationwide, though the ruling remains subject to revision before final publication.

•Case addresses federal oversight of water pollution permits and the permit shield provision that protects compliant entities

•Supreme Court unanimously held that voluntary dismissals without prejudice constitute "final proceedings" under Rule 60(b)

Supreme Court Rules Dismissed Cases Can Be Reopened Under Rule 60(b)

The Supreme Court held that federal courts can reopen cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The unanimous decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. clarifies procedural rules for employment discrimination cases involving arbitration.

•Decision resolves circuit split over whether dismissed cases can be reopened for post-arbitration relief

•Supreme Court unanimously limits trademark damage awards to profits earned by the actual defendant entity

Supreme Court Limits Trademark Damages to Actual Defendant Profits

The Supreme Court ruled February 26 that courts cannot aggregate profits from corporate affiliates when calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. The unanimous decision in *Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers* restricts damage awards to profits actually earned by the defendant entity.

•Courts cannot aggregate profits from corporate affiliates when calculating Lanham Act damages

•Supreme Court ruled plaintiffs with only preliminary injunctions are not "prevailing parties" eligible for attorney fees

Supreme Court: No Attorney Fees for Preliminary Injunctions in Moot Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that drivers who obtained a preliminary injunction against Virginia's license suspension statute cannot recover attorney fees under federal civil rights law after the case became moot when the legislature repealed the law.

•Virginia repealed contested driver's license suspension law after lawsuit began but before trial

Jan 23, 2026•2 min read

•Richard Glossip has been on death row for nearly 28 years based primarily on testimony from the actual killer, Justin Sneed

Supreme Court to Decide Glossip v. Oklahoma Death Penalty Case

The Supreme Court will decide Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital punishment case involving Richard Glossip, who has been on death row for nearly 28 years. The case centers on whether Glossip should be executed based primarily on testimony from the actual killer, Justin Sneed, and involves complex post-conviction relief proceedings.

•The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Glossip's conviction on first appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, but he was retried and again sentenced to death

•Supreme Court decided Wisconsin Bell v. Heath involving E-Rate program fraud allegations

Supreme Court Rules on E-Rate Fraud Case Against Wisconsin Bell

The Supreme Court decided Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, a case involving allegations that Wisconsin Bell defrauded the federal E-Rate program that subsidizes telecommunications services for schools and libraries. The decision addresses fraud claims related to the Universal Service Fund administration.

•Case centers on 'lowest corresponding price' rule requiring fair pricing for schools and libraries