SCOTUS Takes Magnet School and Home Distilling Cases; DOJ Sues California Over 20,000 Ballots; Judge Tosses NYC Sanctuary Suit: Oct 19

Better Call Claude Briefing — Oct 19, 2026

The Supreme Court opened the week by agreeing to hear a Maryland magnet-school admissions fight and a challenge to the federal ban on home distilling, and it let a songwriter's worldwide copyright win stand because too many justices sat out. Meanwhile, the Justice Department sued California to stop the counting of roughly 20,000 mail ballots it says belong to "likely noncitizens," a Brooklyn federal judge threw out the administration's lawsuit against New York City's sanctuary laws, and Hogan Lovells Cadwalader signed on with both Harvey and Legora in a firmwide AI overhaul. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

Supreme Court takes Maryland magnet-school admissions case and home-distilling ban, lets songwriter's copyright win stand

In its Monday, October 19 order list from the justices' October 16 conference, the Supreme Court granted review in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education (No. 26-12), limited to whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must show the targeted group suffered an "aggregate disparate impact" relative to its share of the applicant pool. The parents' group, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, says Montgomery County Public Schools changed its magnet middle-school criteria to measure students against classmates at their own elementary schools, which it argues falls hardest on Asian American students clustered in high-performing schools; a federal judge in Maryland and the Fourth Circuit ruled for the district, and the challengers say the Second and Third Circuits use a different approach. NBC News noted the question is a narrower, evidentiary one, so the Court is not poised to rule on the underlying constitutional claim. The Court also granted Department of Justice v. McNutt (No. 26-204), where the Fifth Circuit held that an 1868 federal law banning home distilleries exceeds Congress's taxing and necessary-and-proper powers; the Sixth Circuit upheld the same ban in Ream v. Department of the Treasury, and SCOTUSblog reports argument is likely early next year. In a rare move, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's ruling in BMG Rights Management v. Vetter (No. 25-1391) for lack of a quorum because Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson did not participate, leaving in place a holding that songwriter Cyril Vetter's termination recaptured worldwide rights to "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)." Among 74 denials, the Court also turned away Wilcox v. Trump and Google LLC v. VirtaMove, and it invited the Solicitor General's views in Iowa's Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice. Why it matters: the admissions case could set the evidentiary bar for every race-neutral admissions challenge after the 2023 college-admissions ruling, while the Vetter affirmance carries no nationwide precedent but leaves in place a Fifth Circuit rule that music publishers, record labels, and film studios had urged the justices to review.

Sources: SCOTUSblog: home distilleries, NBC News, Pacific Legal Foundation, Bloomberg Law: Vetter quorum, Oct. 19 order list summary (Supreme Court Report)

Justice Department sues California to block counting of about 20,000 mail ballots

On Thursday, October 15, the Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan in federal court in Los Angeles (United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025), asking a judge to stop the state from tabulating mail ballots from roughly 20,000 registered voters that Homeland Security Investigations flagged as "likely noncitizens" until their citizenship is verified. The suit followed October 13 letters from acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter giving state and county officials 48 hours to review the list; Logan refused to open a thumb drive delivered with a handwritten password, citing security protocols, and Weber called the matter an "emergency of the DOJ's creation" and said she would not disenfranchise voters on "unverifiable information." Attorney General Rob Bonta vowed to fight the case, and on Friday, October 16, the Justice Department escalated by warning L.A. County lawyers that officials who tabulate the flagged ballots could face prosecution as "aiders and abettors to a federal crime," according to the Los Angeles Times. Election experts quoted by the Times point to the National Voter Registration Act's 90-day quiet period on systematic list maintenance before federal elections, and note that a similar federal claim in Nevada shrank to 185 names, all of whom turned out to be citizens. This is a new front, separate from Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's October 9 ruling vacating the DOJ's voter-roll policy, which the department says it will appeal. Why it matters: California mail ballots are already out for the November 3 midterms, so how quickly a judge acts, and whether courts will let federal agencies single out individual ballots weeks before an election, could shape similar fights in other states.

Sources: Los Angeles Times (Oct. 17), San Francisco Chronicle, NPR, Complaint (via Courthouse News)

Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against New York City's sanctuary laws

Late on Thursday, October 15, U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. of the Eastern District of New York granted New York City's motion to dismiss United States v. City of New York, the July 2025 suit in which the Justice Department argued that city laws limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement violate the Supremacy Clause. Reyes found the government lacked standing to challenge the city's limits on honoring ICE detainers because New York state law already bars local officers from making civil immigration arrests. He also rejected the preemption theory, writing that the government's arguments "amount to nothing more than a backdoor around the Tenth Amendment," and declined to follow older Second Circuit precedent, concluding that the federal information-sharing statutes 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373(a) and 1644 themselves violate the anti-commandeering doctrine. The court likewise rejected claims that the city laws discriminate against or directly regulate the federal government, reasoning that enjoining them would effectively commandeer local resources. Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the ruling "a victory for New Yorkers," and the Justice Department did not immediately comment, according to Reuters and Gothamist. Why it matters: the decision adds to a growing list of courts rejecting the administration's sanctuary-city suits, and its holding on §§ 1373 and 1644 sets up a likely appeal to the Second Circuit on how far Washington can push local governments to share custody and release information.

Sources: Bloomberg Law, Gothamist, Reuters (via WTOU), Memorandum & Order (via Legal Aid Society)

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader signs with both Harvey and Legora in firmwide AI overhaul

On Friday, October 16, newly merged Hogan Lovells Cadwalader announced a firmwide AI strategy and governance structure, including signed agreements with both Harvey and Legora, the two leading generative-AI platforms competing for big-law business. CEO Miguel Zaldivar said "there is no single AI solution that will meet every need of a modern global law firm," adding that the firm's ELTEMATE unit will keep building proprietary tools, workflows, and client-facing products alongside the licensed platforms. Paul Otto, a Washington, D.C.-based Global Regulatory partner who advises on AI, cybersecurity, and data risk, becomes Managing Partner – Legal Technology and AI, and Oliver Campbell, a former capital markets lawyer, was named Chief Transformation Officer. The firm is creating a new AI Board to vet ideas from practice groups, decide whether to build or buy, allocate resources, and oversee deployment. It also launched a Commercial Unit, led by Bill Ferreira as Managing Partner – Commercial Unit and Client Delivery, focused on pricing, legal project management, pitching, and client delivery. Zaldivar tied the investment to the scale created by the merger and said the firm will stay independent and keep its partnership model. Why it matters: a multi-vendor deal with both Harvey and Legora signals that large firms are moving away from picking a single AI winner and toward governance, pricing, and accountability structures as AI reshapes how legal work is staffed and billed — a timely shift as courts keep sanctioning lawyers who file unchecked AI output.

Sources: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader press release, Bar & Bench

Not legal advice

This Briefing is a general news summary from Better Call Claude (bettercallclaude.org) and is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For help with your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.