Federal Court

Subscribe to Federal Court via RSS

On May 18, the Eighth Circuit held that NHTSA’s informal letters determining that certain aftermarket products violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 constitute final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The 2-1 decision reverses the district court’s dismissal and remands for consideration of a preliminary injunction. The holding has implications well beyond the automotive-safety context and shows how the Eighth Circuit evaluates whether informal enforcement correspondence qualifies as final agency action.

Over the last couple of years, we have written about a federal case brought by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) (here, 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. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a federal district court’s decision ruling against the Tribe.

For years, we have written (here, here, here, and here) about the decade-long effort to vacate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to “deem” premium cigars covered by FDA’s 2016 rule (the Deeming Rule), which swept all tobacco products under FDA authority. On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order that it characterized as “(hopefully) … the final chapter” in the litigation over how FDA regulates premium cigars. The parties have 30 days to appeal the order, but, if not, the order will stand.

Regulators have been steadily tightening the screws on “junk fees” across the economy — from hotel resort fees to “service” and other charges when buying live event tickets. The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule on unfair or deceptive fees (FTC’s Fees Rule), which took effect on May 12, 2025, is a centerpiece of that effort, requiring businesses to show consumers the full price up front. The latest enforcement action targets one of the biggest players in the live event ticketing market: StubHub.

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 that the Dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit states from imposing residency requirements for obtaining marijuana business licenses. The court found that the federal illegality of marijuana renders Dormant Commerce Clause protections inapplicable, cementing a circuit split on the constitutionality of state residency rules for marijuana licenses.

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.