Law & Court Decisions — 2026-09-24

Supreme Court & Federal Courts

Patrick Mahoney v. US Capitol Police Board — D.C. Circuit

• Holding: The appeals court ruled that restrictions on protests on the U.S. Capitol's east steps curb free speech, finding the protest limits infringe First Amendment rights.
• Vote / posture: Panel decision issued 9/22/26, No. 24-05207. Senior Judge Judith Rogers (a Clinton appointee) dissented in part, saying she would also have upheld the lower court's conclusion that the eastern steps are a public forum and that restrictions aren't narrowly tailored to security interests. Judge Karen Henderson (a George H. W. Bush appointee) also sat on the panel.
• Why it matters: The ruling loosens restrictions on political demonstrations at the Capitol itself — a venue of intense national significance — and clarifies the public-forum analysis for historic protest spaces.

Apple vs. Epic Games contempt ruling — U.S. Supreme Court (cert stage)

• Holding: On appeal, not a merits ruling — but the U.S. government this week urged the Supreme Court to reverse the contempt ruling against Apple over App Store commission practices. Several legal and business groups also filed briefs with the Court this week.
• Vote / posture: Certiorari stage; amicus and government briefs filed this week.
• Why it matters: If the Court takes the case and reverses, it could shield Apple's App Store commission structure from court-imposed changes in the U.S., with major implications for app developers and platform economics.

1 sources

conservativebrief.com

conservativebrief.com

OpenAI — district court

No fresh, verifiable post-2026-09-22 data for an additional independent Supreme Court ruling this coverage window; only the above items meet the freshness cutoff.

Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles

Apple vs. Epic Games — U.S. Supreme Court

• What happened this week: The U.S. government, along with several legal and business groups, filed briefs with the Supreme Court in the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit, urging the Court to reverse the lower-court contempt ruling over App Store commissions.
• Stakes: The contempt ruling threatened Apple's App Store commission practices; reversal would preserve the status quo and potentially narrow courts' power to police compliance with injunctions.
• Status: Pending before the Supreme Court; watch for a cert decision.

Note: No additional fresh (post-2026-09-22) developments in DOJ/FTC or EU DMA dockets met the strict 24-hour cutoff for this issue.

Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement

• Law professors' attorney complaints — 2nd Circuit: In July, the Second Circuit upheld a district court finding that law professors who lodged attorney discipline complaints had a constitutional right to publicize those complaints; coverage of the decision was still surfacing in legal-press roundups this week.

• Nevadaacting US attorney dispute context — 9th Circuit: A Ninth Circuit panel previously held that Attorney General Pam Bondi violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in designating Chattah to serve as acting U.S. attorney in Nevada; the panel found the district court properly ruled her invalidly appointed. (Inclusion is for context only — this ruling dates to earlier this fall and is noted here as related background to ongoing appointment-law litigation.)

Case of the Week — Deep Dive

US Government's Supreme Court Brief in Apple vs. Epic Games

• Background: Apple has been fighting a contempt ruling arising from the Epic Games litigation over App Store rules and commissions. That fight has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the government and outside groups weighed in this week ().
• What happened: Per 9to5Mac, "several legal and business groups, in addition to the U.S. government, filed briefs with the Supreme Court this week in the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit," urging the justices to reverse the contempt ruling over App Store commission enforcement ().
• Ripple effects: The government's intervention is notable — DOJ itself has pursued Apple in a separate antitrust case, yet here it backs Apple against the contempt order. Outside amici lining up on both sides suggests broad stakeholder interest: app developers, platform operators, and remedies-law scholars are all watching how the Court treats injunctive enforcement in platform-economy cases. A cert grant would make this one of the most consequential tech cases of the coming term.

1 sources

9to5mac.com

9to5mac.com

What to Watch Next

• Cert decision in Apple vs. Epic Games (U.S. Supreme Court): With government and amicus briefs now filed, watch for the Court's decision on whether to hear the contempt-ruling appeal.
• Possible D.C. Circuit next steps in Mahoney v. US Capitol Police Board (No. 24-05207): Watch for rehearing petitions or cert activity following the free-speech ruling.
• 2026–27 Supreme Court term (U.S. Supreme Court): Election-related disputes are already accumulating on the interim docket as the new term approaches.
• Second Circuit attorney-complaint ruling's aftermath: Watch for state disciplinary authorities' response to the holding that professors may publicize their complaints.

Reader Takeaways

• If you run a business: The Second Circuit's ruling protects your ability to publicly disclose complaints you've filed — including attorney discipline complaints — as constitutionally protected speech.
• If you build tech products: The government's Supreme Court brief backing Apple against the contempt order could shape how aggressively courts can enforce platform-injunction remedies — a win for Apple would slow structural changes to App Store rules.
• If you're a consumer/activist: The D.C. Circuit's protest ruling strengthens your First Amendment footing to demonstrate on the Capitol's east steps, pending any further appeal.