The Investigative Journal’s weekly survey of the most consequential court actions, drawn from public dockets, court opinions, and verified case filings. Quotations are taken from public orders and opinions; pending matters are flagged accordingly.
The week of May 4 to May 11 produced an unusually dense calendar of federal and state court action. Justice Samuel Alito kept the mifepristone telehealth case alive with a brief extension order at the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of International Trade voided the administration’s replacement global tariff regime, the D.C. Circuit refused to lift an order requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement to admit members of Congress without seven days’ notice, and the Supreme Court of Virginia threw out a voter-approved redistricting amendment in a 4-3 decision. Below is a court-by-court summary of what happened, what the filings actually say, and what to watch next.
Supreme Court
Mifepristone telehealth case extended again — Louisiana v. FDA
On May 11, Justice Alito issued an administrative order extending by three days an earlier stay that preserves the FDA’s existing rules permitting telehealth prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone. The order keeps access in place at least through Thursday while the full Court continues to consider Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro’s stay application of a Fifth Circuit ruling that would have reinstated in-person dispensing requirements. According to court filings, the dispute centers on whether the Fifth Circuit’s order in Louisiana v. FDA can be reconciled with the agency’s 2021 and 2023 actions removing the in-person requirement. The state of Louisiana, joined by a coalition of state attorneys general, has urged the justices to keep the appellate order in force, while the drug manufacturers argue that allowing it to take effect would disrupt long-settled patient care arrangements nationwide.
Records suggest the Court is treating the matter as time-sensitive: the original administrative stay was scheduled to expire May 8 before Alito’s three-day extension. Court watchers note the Court has not yet announced whether it will issue a full opinion, refer the matter to the full conference, or allow the Fifth Circuit ruling to take effect on a delayed timeline. SCOTUSblog notes the case sits at the intersection of FDA preemption doctrine and the Court’s evolving administrative-law jurisprudence after Loper Bright.
Louisiana v. Callais finalized; rehearing denied
On May 4, the Supreme Court declined a request from civil-rights petitioners to delay finalization of its April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which by a 6-3 vote invalidated a 2024 congressional map that had created two majority-Black districts. The order accelerates issuance of the judgment so that Louisiana can attempt to redraw districts in time for fall 2026 primary cycles, though state officials have already announced the May 16 congressional primary will be postponed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the immediate-effect order, writing that the ruling “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana,” according to the order’s accompanying opinion published on the Supreme Court orders page.
The downstream effects are already visible. Lawsuits filed in both federal and state court in Louisiana challenge Gov. Jeff Landry’s primary postponement, and at least two state legislatures — including Florida — have publicly tied new mid-decade redistricting proposals to the Callais reasoning. The case will likely shape Section 2 Voting Rights Act litigation through the 2030 cycle.
Federal Courts of Appeals
D.C. Circuit: ICE oversight visits remain unrestricted
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 8 denied the Department of Homeland Security’s motion to stay a district court injunction barring ICE from enforcing a new seven-day advance-notice requirement on members of Congress seeking to inspect detention facilities. The panel’s order, available on the D.C. Circuit’s media page, kept in place the lower court’s preliminary injunction. Judge Neomi Rao, concurring, wrote that the case presented a “close call” on the merits and on standing, but that the government had not carried its burden to show irreparable injury from continued oversight access.
The underlying statutory question turns on a Department of Homeland Security appropriations rider that requires ICE to grant access to lawmakers “whenever they request it.” Filings indicate DHS introduced the seven-day requirement in early 2026 after several unannounced visits drew public attention. The panel’s order, which is procedural rather than a final merits ruling, allows oversight visits to proceed while the appeal continues; the panel directed expedited briefing on the merits.
Court of International Trade strikes Section 122 tariffs
On May 7, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the administration’s 10 percent “global baseline” tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 are unlawful, calling them “invalid” and “unauthorized by law.” The case, brought by spice importer Burlap & Barrel, toy manufacturer Basic Fun!, and the State of Washington, follows the Supreme Court’s February ruling that had struck down a prior round of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Per the CIT’s published reasoning, Section 122 authorizes import surcharges only in response to “large and persistent” balance-of-payments deficits — a statutory threshold the panel found the government had not attempted to satisfy.
Importantly, the permanent injunction the court entered applies only to the named plaintiffs. Customs and Border Protection has not issued universal instructions halting Section 122 collections, meaning non-plaintiff importers must continue paying the duty pending appeal. The Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 8, setting up a second high-stakes tariff appeal in less than a year.
First Circuit / D. Mass. wind-and-solar permitting injunction stands
An April 21 preliminary injunction from Judge Denise J. Casper in the District of Massachusetts, blocking five Trump-administration policies that renewable-energy developers said were freezing federal wind and solar permitting, remained in force this week with no successful interlocutory challenge. The injunction targets, among other items, a DOI review procedures memorandum dated July 15, 2025, and an Interior Department “IPaC ban” issued the same month. According to the order summarized by Crowell & Moring, the court found a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to project developers. The case is one of several this term that will test the courts’ willingness to police agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act in the renewable-energy sector.
U.S. District Courts
Massachusetts: ACIP vaccine advisory committee appeal filed
On May 11, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the District of Massachusetts, challenging Judge Brian Murphy’s March 16 preliminary injunction halting the Department of Health and Human Services’ reconstitution of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Filings indicate the injunction prevents HHS from seating new ACIP members or implementing recommendations the reconstituted committee had issued before the March order. The appeal will be heard by the First Circuit. The administration’s notice cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 Trump v. CASA decision, which constrained the availability of nationwide injunctions, as a basis for narrowing the lower court’s order. Plaintiffs argue the order is properly scoped to the agency action being challenged, not to enforcement against parties.
California: federal antisemitism law injunction denied
A federal judge in California declined to enjoin a new state statute regulating instruction on antisemitism in public schools, ruling that plaintiffs had not made the showing required for preliminary relief, according to court records summarized by EdSource. The decision allows the law to take effect while the underlying First Amendment challenge proceeds. Plaintiffs have signaled they will pursue an expedited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
State Supreme Courts
Supreme Court of Virginia voids redistricting referendum
In a 4-3 decision issued May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down the constitutional amendment voters approved on April 21 that would have authorized a new Democratic-drawn congressional map. Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, writing for the majority, held that “the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement” of Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution. The majority concluded the procedural defect “irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.” The opinion is available through the Virginia Department of Elections.
The ruling preserves Virginia’s existing 6-5 congressional map through the 2026 midterm and the remainder of the decade. Democrats had argued the new map would yield as many as four additional seats. The state party has signaled it will seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, though the federal question presented is narrow given that the Virginia court rested its decision on state constitutional grounds.
Michigan Court of Appeals upholds renewable-siting law
Also on May 8, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the bulk of state regulations limiting local control over large wind, solar, and battery-storage projects, finding that the Michigan Public Service Commission followed proper rulemaking processes under a 2023 law. The split ruling preserves the state’s ability to override local zoning denials for qualifying renewable projects above set capacity thresholds. Local government plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they will seek leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Cases to Watch — Week of May 11
Three matters dominate the coming week’s docket. First, the Supreme Court’s continuing deliberation on the Louisiana v. FDA mifepristone stay must be resolved by the end of Justice Alito’s extended administrative order; a substantive decision, even if procedural, is expected within days. Second, the Federal Circuit’s docketing of the Section 122 tariff appeal will signal how quickly the appellate court intends to address the second tariff loss in three months, with significant fiscal-year revenue implications. Third, briefing continues at the Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the FIFRA preemption case argued April 27, with an opinion expected in late June; the case could reshape product-liability exposure for federally registered pesticides nationwide, according to SCOTUSblog’s case file.
Records suggest at least two additional matters merit attention: the First Circuit’s expected scheduling order in the ACIP appeal, and a potential cert petition arising from the Virginia redistricting ruling. The Investigative Journal will continue to track each through public filings and verified court documents.
Reporting based on court orders, opinions, and public docket entries. The Investigative Journal does not provide legal advice. All pending matters are noted as such; allegations are distinguished from findings of fact.