Legally Brief: Federal — March 12, 2026
Five SCOTUS decisions. A landmark DOJ enforcement shift. Congressional action on Epstein accountability and organized crime. This week, the federal legal landscape moved on every front.
Week of March 7 – 12, 2026
6-3 stay halts court-ordered redraw of NY's 11th Congressional District
The Supreme Court granted Republicans' emergency request to pause a lower court order that would have required New York to redraw its 11th Congressional District before the 2026 midterm elections. The stay preserves the current district boundaries while the case proceeds.
At the heart of the dispute is whether New York's redistricting commission engaged in racial gerrymandering. Justice Alito, writing separately, called the lower court's approach "unadorned racial discrimination," arguing that sorting voters by race to achieve proportional representation violates the Equal Protection Clause regardless of intent.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, warning that the stay effectively allows a potentially unconstitutional map to determine the outcome of the next election. For election lawyers and voting rights advocates, this case may ultimately reshape what courts can demand during an active redistricting cycle — and how quickly they can demand it.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Federal courts must defer to immigration judges
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal appeals courts must apply a highly deferential standard when reviewing asylum denials by immigration judges. The case, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, clarifies that a court can only reverse an asylum denial if "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary."
Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous court, emphasized that this standard is not a rubber stamp — but it is close. The practical effect: asylum seekers who lose before an immigration judge now face an even steeper climb on appeal. Federal circuit courts that had been applying a more searching review are now constrained.
For immigration attorneys, this means the initial hearing before the immigration judge becomes even more critical. Every piece of evidence, every witness, every country-conditions report must be airtight the first time — because the chance of a meaningful appellate correction just narrowed considerably.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Galette v. NJ Transit: State-created entities aren't automatically "arms of the state"
In Galette v. NJ Transit, the Supreme Court unanimously held that New Jersey Transit is not an "arm of the state" entitled to sovereign immunity in other states' courts. Justice Sotomayor's opinion establishes that a state-created entity must do more than simply point to its charter — it must demonstrate the functional characteristics that make sovereign immunity appropriate.
The ruling has immediate implications for anyone injured by a state transit authority outside its home state. Previously, entities like NJ Transit could argue that suing them in, say, Pennsylvania or New York violated New Jersey's sovereignty. That argument is now dead.
More broadly, the decision forces dozens of quasi-governmental entities — port authorities, turnpike commissions, university systems — to reconsider whether they enjoy the same immunity protections they've long assumed. Plaintiffs' attorneys in interstate tort and contract disputes should take note: the shield just got smaller.
Source: SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of whether artificial intelligence, acting without meaningful human creative direction, can be the "author" of a copyrightable work. By denying cert, the Court leaves intact the lower court ruling and the U.S. Copyright Office's longstanding position: only humans can create copyrightable works.
The case originated from Stephen Thaler's attempt to register a visual work generated entirely by his AI system, DABUS. The Copyright Office refused. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. And now the Supreme Court has let that stand — at least for now.
Companies using AI to generate content — marketing copy, code, images, music — cannot claim copyright protection over purely AI-generated output. The human authorship requirement means businesses must document meaningful human creative involvement in the process. For AI startups, this creates a clear incentive to build tools that augment human creativity rather than replace it entirely.
The Court's refusal to weigh in leaves the hardest question untouched: how much human involvement is "enough"? A prompt? A curated selection? A final edit? The Copyright Office has issued guidance, but litigation is inevitable as AI-assisted works become the norm rather than the exception.
Source: Morgan Lewis
Mirabelli v. Bonta: 6-3 ruling blocks California's student gender notification policy
In a 6-3 decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court struck down California's policy prohibiting schools from notifying parents when a student changes their gender identity at school. The majority held that parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, rooted in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, outweighs the state's interest in student privacy.
The decision draws a clear line: states cannot create policies that systematically exclude parents from significant decisions affecting their minor children, even when the state's goal is to protect vulnerable students. The ruling does not prohibit schools from supporting transgender students — but it does require that parents remain in the loop.
The dissent argued the majority's framing ignores the reality that some students face genuine danger at home, and that the Court was substituting its judgment for the state legislature's. For education lawyers and school administrators nationwide, the decision requires immediate policy review. Any district with a similar confidentiality policy is now on notice.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Oral arguments test whether federal ban on drug users possessing firearms survives Bruen
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on one of the most closely watched Second Amendment cases since New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): whether the federal prohibition on firearm possession by users of controlled substances — 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — violates the Second Amendment.
Under Bruen, gun regulations must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The government argues that historical laws disarming "dangerous" individuals provide the necessary precedent. Challengers counter that no founding-era law stripped gun rights based on substance use alone — and that with 24 states having legalized recreational marijuana, the federal ban criminalizes conduct most Americans no longer consider deviant.
A ruling is expected by the end of the current term in June. If the Court strikes down § 922(g)(3), the immediate effect would extend beyond marijuana: it could call into question disarmament provisions for users of any controlled substance, reshaping the intersection of drug policy and gun rights for millions of Americans.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Self-disclosure can now earn prosecution declinations — across all criminal divisions
The Department of Justice released its first-ever department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP), extending voluntary self-disclosure incentives beyond the fraud and FCPA divisions to every criminal division in the department. For the first time, any company that voluntarily discloses criminal conduct, cooperates fully, and remediates effectively may receive a declination — a decision not to prosecute — regardless of which division handles the case.
The policy is historic for two reasons. First, it creates uniformity: previously, whether self-disclosure earned leniency depended on which DOJ unit investigated you. A company facing an antitrust probe had different incentives than one facing an environmental crime investigation. That asymmetry is now eliminated.
Second, and perhaps more consequentially, all declination decisions will be made public. This transparency measure means companies can see exactly what conduct earned leniency and what didn't — creating a body of informal precedent that will shape corporate compliance programs nationwide.
The calculus on whether to self-report just shifted dramatically. Under the new CEP, the upside of voluntary disclosure (potential declination) is clear and consistent, while the downside of staying silent (full prosecution without credit for cooperation) is also clear. Companies should review their internal investigation triggers and escalation protocols immediately. The question is no longer if to report — it's how fast.
Source: Department of Justice
Representative Bell introduced the EPSTEIN Act, which would establish an independent, nonpartisan commission to investigate the full scope of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise — including potential failures by federal law enforcement agencies that enabled his conduct to continue for decades.
The bill is modeled on the 9/11 Commission structure: subpoena power, classified access, and a mandate to produce a public report with policy recommendations. Proponents argue that existing congressional investigations have been too fragmented and partisan to produce accountability.
Whether the bill advances depends on bipartisan support in committee. The political dynamics are unusual — both parties have members who want transparency and members who would prefer the matter remain closed. For attorneys representing Epstein victims, a federal commission could open new avenues for civil claims and compel testimony from witnesses who have thus far refused to cooperate.
The commission would have independent subpoena power, access to classified materials, and an 18-month mandate to produce a public report. All commissioners would be appointed jointly by leadership of both parties. The bill explicitly prohibits any sitting elected official from serving on the commission.
Source: Rep. Bell's Office
Whitehouse & Blumenthal introduce bill to revive OCDETF funding and staffing
Senators Whitehouse and Blumenthal introduced the Protect Law Enforcement Task Forces Act, aimed at restoring the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) to full operational capacity. OCDETF, which coordinates multi-agency investigations into drug trafficking organizations and transnational criminal enterprises, has seen significant budget and staffing reductions in recent years.
The bill would mandate minimum staffing levels, protect OCDETF's budget from discretionary cuts, and require the Attorney General to submit annual reports on task force operations and outcomes. Supporters argue that dismantling the federal government's primary tool for fighting organized crime creates dangerous gaps that cartels and trafficking networks exploit.
For federal criminal defense attorneys, restoration of OCDETF means more multi-district, multi-defendant prosecutions — the complex conspiracy cases that carry the heaviest sentences. If the bill passes, expect an increase in sealed indictments and coordinated takedowns in major metropolitan areas.
Source: Sen. Whitehouse's Office
Dormant federal program reopened, allowing convicted felons to petition for firearms rights
The Department of Justice has restarted a long-dormant federal program that allows convicted felons to petition for restoration of their firearms rights. The program, authorized by statute but unfunded by Congress since the 1990s, had been effectively dead for over 30 years. DOJ is now processing applications using existing appropriations.
Under the program, individuals with felony convictions can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to have their firearms disabilities removed. Applicants must demonstrate rehabilitation, community ties, and that restoring their gun rights would not endanger public safety. Each application is reviewed individually.
The decision is legally and politically significant. It intersects with the ongoing Second Amendment expansion under Bruen, the broader criminal justice reform movement's focus on reentry, and the administration's stated support for gun rights. For criminal defense attorneys advising clients on post-conviction relief, this opens an entirely new avenue that didn't practically exist before — and for gun rights organizations, it represents a major policy victory decades in the making.
Source: NPR
The federal legal pipeline remains full. Key items to monitor: