Law & Court Decisions — 2026-10-15

Supreme Court & Federal Courts

Berry v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court

• Holding: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case determining whether circuit splits allow federal prisoners to file second or successive habeas corpus appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The core issue is whether binding precedent in a prisoner's home circuit precludes a petition if other circuits have reached different conclusions.
• Vote / posture: Certiorari granted on October 13, 2026.
• Why it matters: The ruling will resolve a significant split among the Eleventh, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits regarding the finality of criminal judgments and the rights of federal prisoners to challenge their sentences based on evolving case law.

US v. [Defendant] — Third Circuit Court of Appeals

• Holding: A federal appeals court ruled that the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) is constitutional only when applied to individuals whose prior convictions involved violence or threats suggesting a risk of firearm misuse.
• Vote / posture: Published opinion issued October 13, 2026.
• Why it matters: This decision significantly narrows the reach of the federal felon-in-possession statute within the Third Circuit, potentially benefiting defendants with non-violent felony records and creating further pressure for Supreme Court review of Second Amendment applications post-Bruen.

Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles

Google vs. Department of Justice — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

• What happened this week: The DOJ announced it won substantial relief in its monopolization case against Google in advertising technology markets. The court ordered significant behavioral relief against the tech giant.
• Stakes: The remedies aim to dismantle Google's dominance in ad tech, impacting how digital advertising auctions and intermediaries operate.
• Status: Judgment entered; details of specific behavioral remedies are being finalized.

Bumble vs. Acquisition Partners — Merger Review

• What happened this week: Dating app operator Bumble agreed to a $1.3 billion acquisition deal.
• Stakes: The deal will be subject to standard antitrust review by the FTC or DOJ to ensure it does not harm competition in the social/dating app market.
• Status: Deal announcement; regulatory review pending.

Martin Shkreli vs. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) & State AGs — Enforcement Action

• What happened this week: The FTC and state attorneys general alleged that Martin Shkreli was violating his lifetime ban from the pharmaceutical industry.
• Stakes: Enforcement of the lifetime ban seeks to prevent Shkreli from engaging in pharma business activities, with potential contempt charges or fines if violations are proven.
• Status: Legal proceedings initiated; hearing dates TBD.

Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement

• DOJ Threatens Probe of ABA: The Department of Justice has threatened to investigate the American Bar Association regarding its accreditation standards for law schools, signaling a broader regulatory push into legal education governance.
• Amazon Wins US Appeal: Amazon successfully won an appeal in a case seeking internal antitrust documents, protecting certain proprietary information from disclosure in ongoing litigation.

Case of the Week — Deep Dive: Berry v. United States

Background: Federal prisoners often seek to challenge their sentences after they become final, particularly when new Supreme Court rulings change the interpretation of criminal statutes. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), prisoners generally need permission from a circuit court to file "second or successive" habeas petitions. One pathway allows this if the prisoner relies on a "new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court."

What the court/regulator said: The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Berry v. US on October 13, 2026, to address whether a circuit split itself can trigger this right. The Eleventh Circuit (along with the Fifth and Sixth) has held that if binding precedent in the prisoner's circuit rejects their claim, they cannot file a successive petition, even if other circuits interpret the law differently. The petitioner argues that when circuits disagree, there is no single "binding" rule that definitively precludes the claim, thus allowing the petition.

Ripple effects: This case has profound implications for thousands of federal prisoners, particularly those seeking to reduce sentences based on recent changes in drug sentencing laws or firearm enhancements. A ruling for the petitioner would open the floodgates for habeas petitions in circuits that currently enforce strict finality rules, potentially overwhelming federal courts. Conversely, a ruling for the government would solidify the power of circuit precedent to block challenges, even where those precedents are isolated views. The decision will likely clarify the interplay between Jones v. Hendrix (which limited successive petitions) and the "new rule" exception.

What to Watch Next

• Upcoming Oral Arguments — Berry v. US (Supreme Court): Once briefing is complete, oral arguments will reveal the Justices' appetite for reopening closed criminal cases.
• Third Circuit Follow-up — Implementation of the felon-in-possession ruling (Third Circuit): Lower courts will begin applying the "violence/threats" limitation, potentially leading to immediate dismissals or retrials in pending cases.
• Google Ad Tech Remedies — E.D. Va.: Finalization of the specific behavioral orders from the DOJ's victory, which could reshape the ad-tech landscape.
• ABA Investigation — DOJ: Watch for formal subpoenas or investigation notices directed at the American Bar Association.

Reader Takeaways

• If you run a business: Be aware that antitrust enforcement is shifting toward "behavioral relief" (changing how you do business) rather than just structural breakups, as seen in the Google ad-tech ruling.
• If you build tech products: Data privacy and internal document protection remain critical; Amazon's recent appeal win highlights the difficulty plaintiffs face in accessing internal communications without strong judicial mandates.
• If you're a consumer: Changes in ad-tech regulations may eventually lead to more transparent advertising practices and potentially lower costs for digital services if Google's monopoly power is effectively curtailed.