American Society for Testing & Materials v. UpCodes, Inc., Case No. 24-2965 (3d Cir. 2026).
A platform's republication of copyrighted technical standards incorporated by reference into law constitutes transformative fair use because the platform's purpose – making the law freely accessible to the public – is fundamentally distinct from the standard-development organization's purpose of disseminating current industry best practices.
Geneva Enterprises, LLC v. Chavez, Case No. 25-1469 (4th Cir. 2026).
A court of appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction under § 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act to review a district court order that, in substance, maintained a previously imposed stay of proceedings pending arbitration and directed the parties to arbitrate, regardless of whether that order was nominally framed as a denial of a renewed motion to compel arbitration.
In re: Google, L.L.C., Case No. 25-40788 (5th Cir. 2026).
A district court commits a clear abuse of discretion in denying transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when it allows the most speculative Volkswagen factor – court congestion – to singlehandedly defeat transfer despite all other factors weighing in favor of or being neutral toward transfer.
Young v. Happy Money, Inc. (In re: Young), Case No. 25-6011 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2026).
Even if it is a spouse, a non-attorney joint debtor may not represent, advocate for, or provide legal counsel to the other joint debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding that relates solely to that other debtor's individual debt and alleged automatic stay violations, as doing so constitutes the unauthorized practice of law under applicable state law.
Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. United States Forest Service, Case No. 25-5185 (9th Cir. 2026).
Plaintiffs challenging a congressionally mandated federal land exchange fail to establish a likelihood of success on the merits under the Land Exchange Act, NEPA, the NHPA, and RFRA when they cannot show that the appraisal, environmental impact statement, or tribal consultation process was unlawful.
Olson v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 24-6527 (9th Cir. 2026).
A non-signatory automobile manufacturer cannot enforce a delegation clause in an arbitration agreement between a consumer and a car dealership to compel the consumer to arbitrate arbitrability because the delegation clause applies only to the contracting parties, and there is no clear and unmistakable evidence that the consumer agreed to arbitrate threshold questions with third parties.
