Get full access to Reuters.com for just $1/week. Subscribe now.

The Daily Docket

A newsletter by Reuters and Westlaw

By Caitlin Tremblay

Good morning. A federal judge will hear a renewed bid to force the Pentagon to comply with a press access ruling. Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue orders and hear two oral arguments; the 9th Circuit will hear the government’s appeal in a case that challenges a policy that would end bond eligibility for thousands of immigrants; and the federal judiciary withdrew new requirements for amicus brief disclosures. It’s Monday, again. Here are some of our most unusual photos to help you ease into the work week.

U.S. judge to hear renewed bid to force Pentagon compliance with press access ruling

The Pentagon logo is seen behind the podium in the briefing room at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., January 8, 2020. REUTERS/Al Drago/File Photo

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in D.C. will hear arguments today on whether the Pentagon defied a court order striking down a press access policy from the Trump administration by imposing new limits that media critics say go even further. Here’s what to know:

The case tests how far courts can go to enforce press freedom rulings against the executive branch, and whether agencies can sidestep injunctions with “interim” policies affecting constitutional news‑gathering rights.
Friedman previously ruled key Pentagon credential rules unlawful, citing violations of constitutional protections for press freedom and due process, and ordered immediate reinstatement of reporters’ access. Read more about that ruling here.
The New York Times argues the Pentagon ignored that order, replacing it with an “interim” policy that restricts building access, limits anonymity rules, and retains provisions the court struck down. Read more about the interim policy here.
The Pentagon says it is complying while pursuing an appeal, but press groups call the move a clear violation, raising broader questions about agency compliance with injunctions and remedies for constitutional harms. Read more about today’s hearing here.

Coming up today

SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two oral arguments today. The first will deal with the question of whether a crime’s “contemplated effects” can expand venue beyond where the offense was committed. In the second, the justices will weigh the ability of federal courts to confirm arbitration awards. The court will also issue orders in pending appeals.
Immigration: The 9th Circuit will hear the government’s appeal of a lower court order that granted nationwide class relief to immigrant detainees challenging their no-bond detention. Read that order here.
Maduro: Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro faces a deadline today to file an explanation as to why he proposes a prohibition on his sharing of government evidence with unapprehended co-defendants, including his son, in his U.S. drug trafficking case.
Criminal: A California medical technology company ExThera Medical Corp is slated to appear before U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston for its initial appearance in court after entering into a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve criminal charges that it concealed reports of complications and deaths involving cancer patients who traveled to Antigua to be treated with its blood filtration device.

Court calendars are subject to last-minute docket changes.

More top news

Industry insight

Prominent U.S. law firms urged a federal appeals court in Washington to uphold rulings that blocked President Trump's executive orders last year punishing them over their past legal work, diversity policies and ‌political ties. Read more about the filings here
A federal court has barred law firm Beasley Allen from representing plaintiffs in a consolidated group of over 67,000 lawsuits alleging that Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder causes ovarian cancer, ruling that the firm improperly coordinated with a former J&J attorney on a proposal to settle the litigation. Read more here.
The U.S. federal judiciary has withdrawn a measure that would have boosted disclosure of who finances friend-of-the-court briefs filed by advocacy groups to influence litigation months before it potentially would have gone into effect. Read more here.

80%

That’s by how much U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland cut a class action lawyers’ fee request in a Google privacy settlement. The judge awarded $21.8 million rather than the $128 million the lawyers had sought after ruling that the attorneys achieved only limited success. Read more here.

"Like Captain Renault in Casablanca, the NCAA feigns surprise at conduct it has long known about and tacitly accepted."

—DraftKings in its filing, asserting that the NCAA cannot prohibit it from using "March Madness," "Final Four" and related terms, arguing these phrases have become ingrained in the cultural lexicon. U.S. District Judge Tanya Pratt sided with DraftKings, rejecting the NCAA's claim that using these marks during the NCAA basketball tournament would cause irreparable harm by falsely associating the organization with gambling. Read Pratt’s order.