Judge Halts Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads; SCOTUS Takes DOGE FOIA Case; Sentencing Deference Argued; AI Citation Sanctions: Oct 13

Better Call Claude Briefing — Oct 13, 2026

A federal judge in Manhattan ordered the government to stop running taxpayer-funded pro-Trump TV ads, the Supreme Court added a DOGE records fight and an asylum "material support" case to its docket, the justices heard argument on how much weight judges owe the Sentencing Commission's commentary, and courts kept escalating the price of filing fake AI-generated citations. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

Judge orders DHS to stop airing taxpayer-funded pro-Trump TV ads

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon of the Southern District of New York issued a short order Sunday night, October 11, directing the government to immediately stop using a set of TV advertisements that had aired for about two weeks ahead of the midterms, and explained it Monday in a 40-page opinion. The suit was brought by the watchdog group Common Cause, two labor unions, and a Democratic candidate for the Alabama House, who say about $20 million in Department of Homeland Security money appropriated for border security, technology, and screening was redirected into "overtly political" ads. Judge Rochon found the plaintiffs likely to win under the Administrative Procedure Act, writing that one spot, "Final Battle," is almost identical to a 2024 Trump campaign ad except that its disclaimer now names the U.S. government, and that it "provides no information about DHS's official functions." Notably, the government did not dispute that taxpayer funds paid for the placements or that this violated the Purpose Act and the Appropriations Act; it argued instead that the case was moot because DHS said it had no plans to keep running the ads on the agency's dime and that the ads would shift to private political funding. The court rejected that defense at this stage. A separate Democratic National Committee suit over the same ads is still pending in Washington, D.C. The ruling matters because federal appropriations law has long barred agencies from spending public money on "publicity or propaganda," and courts rarely get to apply that rule this close to an election.

Sources: Courthouse News Service, Opinion and order via Courthouse News (PDF)

SCOTUS takes up a DOGE records fight, an asylum "material support" case, and a circuit-split appeal rule

Back from the holiday weekend, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 13, granted three new cases for the 2026-27 term. In U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the watchdog group CREW sued under the Freedom of Information Act for DOGE records and won fast-track discovery, including employee lists and a deposition of DOGE administrator Amy Gleason, to test whether DOGE is a federal "agency" covered by FOIA. The justices narrowed and paused that discovery on their interim docket in June 2025; after the lower courts approved CREW's trimmed requests, the Solicitor General returned arguing the orders still intrude on confidential presidential advice. The case will decide how far trial courts can go when probing a White House-linked body's status. In Blanche v. Ozurumba, the government asks the Court to reverse a 4th Circuit ruling that a Nigerian asylum seeker who cooked for about six months in a separatist group's camp did not give "material support" to terrorism; the appeals court said cooking with the group's own groceries gave it nothing it could use for violence. The answer will shape who is barred from asylum. And Berry v. United States asks whether a prisoner can get a certificate of appealability when his own circuit's precedent forecloses his claim but another circuit would let it proceed. In the same orders list, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote separately while agreeing to deny review in Herrera-Salazar v. United States, flagging "serious constitutional problems" with prosecuting a man a second time for being "found in" the U.S. while he was on supervised release that barred him from leaving.

Sources: SCOTUSblog

Justices weigh whether judges must still defer to Sentencing Commission commentary

The Court also heard argument Tuesday in Beaird v. United States, which asks whether Stinson v. United States (1993) still requires federal judges to treat the U.S. Sentencing Commission's official commentary as controlling unless it is plainly wrong. Kendrick Beaird received a higher sentence because his gun's 17-round magazine counted as "large capacity," a definition (more than 15 rounds) that appears only in the commentary, not the guideline itself. Unusually, three lawyers split the hour: Beaird's federal defender argued for no deference at all; the Justice Department agreed that the tighter limits from Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) apply but said commentary will often still deserve weight; and a Court-appointed amicus, Anthony Dick, defended Stinson as written. The case matters well beyond one gun enhancement, because much of the practical detail on applying the guidelines, from fraud loss to firearm rules, lives in the commentary, so the ruling could change sentencing ranges in a large share of federal cases. It is also the latest test of how far the Court's skepticism of agency deference, after Kisor and Loper Bright, extends. On Wednesday the justices turn to Salazar v. Paramount Global, on whether the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act reaches website tracking pixels.

Sources: SCOTUSblog: argument preview, SCOTUSblog: case page, Reason, Cornell LII preview

Fake AI citations now cost clients their cases, and lawyers their admission

Three new rulings show courts raising the stakes for unverified AI research. In Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, who had already struck Affable Avenue LLC's filings and entered a default judgment against it in a toy trademark case (Flycatcher Corp. v. Affable Avenue), ordered its lawyer, Steven A. Feldman, to pay $38,877.59 to the opposing firm that uncovered at least 13 nonexistent cases and eight misquoted real ones. Feldman acknowledged using tools including vLex and Paxton AI without a full cite-check, and even misattributed a quote to Mata v. Avianca, the original AI-hallucination case. In Boston, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley revoked a California attorney's pro hac vice admission and ordered up to $10,000 in fees and costs over three briefs "replete with inaccurate citations," writing that "there is no rule against the use of AI," but it "must be utilized responsibly." And on October 7, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Kid International v. City National Bank of Florida, held the appellants and their counsel jointly liable for the other side's appellate fees after a brief cited a nonexistent case seven times. The common thread is that courts are no longer stopping at fines: they are shifting costs to the party, ending defenses, and policing who may practice before them. For anyone using AI to draft, including people representing themselves, the rule is the same: read and verify every case before you file.

Sources: USA Herald, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, SafeLegalAI analysis

---

This Briefing is general news for Better Call Claude readers. It is not legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Check primary sources and talk to a licensed lawyer about your situation.