• Justices Expand Presidential Power Over Regulators, but Not the Fed

    New York Times
    June 29, 2026

    The [U.S.] Supreme Court expanded presidential power on Monday by affirming President Trump’s ability to fire most independent regulators, though the justices explicitly affirmed the Federal Reserve’s independence and said its leaders could not be dismissed at will. The court’s 6-to-3 ruling could usher in a drastic change to the government’s structure by giving the president more direct control over independent agencies.

    Related: NPR, Associated Press, Reuters

  • Supreme Court allows late-arriving mail ballots, leaving California’s system unaffected

    Los Angeles Times
    June 29, 2026

    The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later. The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

    Related: New York Times, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, Courthouse News Service, Bloomberg Law

  • C.A. Says Social Media Posts May Qualify as Disturbing ‘Contact’ for DVRO Purposes

    Metropolitan News-Enterprise
    June 29, 2026

    Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in declining to issue a domestic violence protective order against a man based on a finding that he had stopped communicating with his ex-girlfriend after their break-up, despite evidence that he had repeatedly changed his social-media profile name to derogatory comments about her and posted purportedly embarrassing images of her on his page.

  • Union Hearing Is ‘Official Proceeding’ for Anti-SLAPP Law

    Metropolitan News-Enterprise
    June 29, 2026

    Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that union disciplinary hearings are “official proceedings” within the meaning of California’s anti-SLAPP law, rejecting the view that they are outside the ambit of “protected activities” under the scheme because of the private nature of labor groups and the absence of statutory authority for such procedures.