Federal Court

Subscribe to Federal Court via RSS

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida stayed discovery in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action while the court considers whether text messages qualify as “calls” under the statute’s do-not-call (DNC) provisions. In McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., the court granted the defendant’s motion to stay, finding that the key issues can be resolved as questions of law without discovery. 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).

In early December 2025, federally regulated derivatives exchange KalshiEX LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut challenging a cease-and-desist order issued by the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) directing Kalshi to halt operations in the state. The DCP contends that Kalshi, along with platforms such as Robinhood and Crypto.com, operates an unlicensed and illegal sports betting platform in violation of Connecticut law. According to the agency, Kalshi’s sports event contracts fall squarely within the state’s definition of sports wagering and expose consumers to risk because they operate outside Connecticut’s regulated gaming framework, lack required integrity controls, and are not subject to consumer protection oversight. Connecticut officials have emphasized that “a prediction market wager is not an investment,” and that Kalshi’s platform offers no recourse for consumers under state law if disputes arise.

Many prediction market firms have sought to avoid state regulation by emphasizing how their services differ from traditional sports betting. They characterize their offerings as “event contracts” or “swaps,” which are only subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight and note that they operate peer‑to‑peer exchanges, earning revenue from transaction fees rather than customer losses. Many state regulators have disagreed with this argument, however, asserting that event contracts cannot be distinguished from state-regulated gaming. Federal courts in various states have reached different conclusions on this issue. A Nevada federal court has now weighed in, ruling that some of these services fall under state gaming law.

We recently wrote about a federal case here and here involving key issues related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to enforce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act) against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act. In addition to appealing the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s decision, we noted that the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) asked the district court to require ATF to remove it from the agency’s PACT Act noncompliant list (NCL) and prevent ATF and the other defendant, the Department of Justice from taking action against it pending its appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 30, the federal district court denied the Tribe’s request.

In 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) placed Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms), a federally recognized Indian tribe that sells cigarettes on sovereign reservations in California, on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s (PACT Act’s) noncompliant list (NCL). The PACT Act generally prohibits common carriers from shipping products to or from companies on the NCL. After ATF placed Twenty-Nine Palms on the NCL, the tribe sued ATF and its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in federal court. This case is worth following because it involves key issues related to ATF’s authority to enforce the PACT Act against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act.

At the end of a blockbuster term, the Supreme Court sharply limited the power of federal courts to issue so-called universal injunctions against government actors. The decision in Trump v. CASA (and related cases) did not foreclose federal courts’ power to enjoin federal policies that are likely unconstitutional but curtailed the reach of those injunctions to the parties (or potentially the plaintiff class) in a suit. The result will require affected parties to litigate rather than wait on potential widespread relief from courts in distant corners of the U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently enjoined Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton from enforcing a pre-litigation subpoena issued to Media Matters for America (Media Matters). The subpoena is related to the Texas AG’s investigation into Media Matters arising out of allegations that the company fraudulently manipulated data after it reported about brand advertisement concerns on X.

We previously wrote about this case last January, here and here, when Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department), challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. On May 2, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Department from implementing and enforcing HF 2677’s vapor product directory provisions. The court held that the Department could, however, continue to enforce the provisions of HF 2677 requiring nonresident vapor product manufacturers not registered to do business in the state as a foreign corporation or business entity to appoint and continually engage an agent for service of process. The parties have a status conference before the court scheduled for May 29.

Yet again, the premium cigar industry has prevailed in federal court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As we have previously discussed here and here, FDA appealed a federal district court decision vacating its rule (the Deeming Rule) subjecting premium cigars to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). On January 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an opinion agreeing[1] with (i) the district court’s ruling that FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it sought to include premium cigars in its Deeming Rule and (ii) the district court’s vacatur of the Deeming Rule as applied to premium cigars, but it remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate definition of “premium cigar.” Now, the district court will reconsider the appropriate definition of “premium cigar,” which will ultimately determine the types of cigars that are not subject to the TCA and FDA’s Deeming Rule. In one potential setback for industry, the D.C. Circuit also stated that it understood the district court’s order as granting relief from user fees prospectively but that it does not read it as permitting the refunding of past user fee payments.

On December 17, 2024, Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint[1] and motion for a preliminary injunction[2] in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department) challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 5. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, it could stay enforcement of the new law until the case is ultimately resolved. While the Department was previously scheduled to publish the vapor products directory on January 2 and begin enforcement on February 3, the Department has not published the directory, and its website indicates that it will not be enforcing the directory. The Department’s website states: “Publication and enforcement of Iowa’s vapor products directory is delayed until further notice. The Department will make an additional announcement before publication and enforcement of the vapor products directory begins. During the delay, manufacturers should continue to submit certification applications.”