This Week: Split-Circuits, Shell Posts, and Swift Soundmarks
SCOTUS pregnancy center ruling, geofence warrant and Roundup label disputes at oral argument, the return of the mifepristone fight, Comey indicted again, and Taylor Swift takes on deepfakes.
Welcome to the Balanced Briefs - Edition#29 - May 3, 2026
Circuit Splits
A circuit split occurs when federal appeals courts from different circuits reach conflicting conclusions about how to interpret the same federal law. The problematic result is that the same law would be applied differently depending on where a case is filed. These conflicts are the cases most likely to reach the Supreme Court.
Geofence case argued this week: The Court heard oral argument Monday in Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the use of geofence warrants. These warrants require companies like Google to turn over location data for every device within a set area during a specific time window. In Chatrie Police used one in a 2019 Virginia bank robbery investigation that collected data from phones across a 17.5-acre area that included a church.
Lower courts have struggled with how to treat these warrants. The Fifth Circuit has described them as the digital equivalent of general warrants, while the Fourth Circuit allowed the conviction to stand without resolving whether the search itself violated the Constitution, relying instead on the good-faith exception.
During argument, several justices appeared hesitant to ban geofence warrants outright and instead focused on what limits might apply. Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the search area could have been confined more narrowly, while Justice Sotomayor pressed whether broad location sweeps resemble the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was meant to prohibit. A decision is expected by late June and could set nationwide rules for digital-location searches.
Circuit Split Cases likely headed to the Court.
A growing split over mandatory immigration detention is emerging after the Second Circuit ruled that many detainees must receive bond hearings, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits upheld the same federal policy. That disagreement makes the issue a strong candidate for Supreme Court review.
Several Second Amendment cases challenging assault weapon and magazine bans also remain pending at the cert stage. The Court has repeatedly relisted at least one of the petitions, a signal that the justices are taking a close look. If granted, it would likely become the most significant gun case since Bruen.
Another developing issue involves parental rights and school disclosure policies, including Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, which asks whether schools may withhold gender-identity information from parents. That issue is beginning to generate litigation across multiple circuits and could reach the Court in the near future.
SCOTUS Unanimously Lets Crisis Pregnancy Centers Challenge NJ Subpoena in Federal Court
On April 29, the Court released two decisions. Louisiana v. Callais, the congressional districting map case, received the bulk of the attention. (see Supreme Court Narrows Voting Rights Act) The second case was a unanimous decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, holding that a religious nonprofit organization could challenge a subpoena demanding the identities of its financial supporters in federal court.
The case reflects how the underlying standing question cuts across ideology when state officials issue compelled-disclosure subpoenas to advocacy groups. At issue was whether a network of faith-based New Jersey pregnancy centers could challenge a state subpoena for donor information in federal court. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that “an official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group.”
The opinion does not invalidate the subpoena itself; instead, it sends the case back to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, where First Choice will get to argue that the Attorney General’s demand for a decade of donor records, advertising materials, and medical personnel identities intrudes on the centers’ First Amendment associational rights.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Erin Hawley, who argued for First Choice, called it a “resounding victory.” The practical impact reaches well beyond abortion politics: any nonprofit facing a state investigative subpoena tied to its expressive activities now has a clearer path into federal court before being forced to comply or face contempt.
Supreme Court Hears Roundup Cancer-Warning Case
On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a closely watched case asking whether federal pesticide law overrides state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required a cancer warning on a product label.
The case stems from a 2019 Missouri lawsuit filed by a St. Louis gardener who used Roundup for roughly two decades before developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A Missouri jury awarded him more than $1 million on his failure-to-warn claim, a verdict upheld on appeal in February 2025.
Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives the EPA primary authority over pesticide labels. Its counsel, Paul Clement, told the justices that allowing state juries to impose additional warnings would create a patchwork of conflicting labeling rules nationwide.
Durnell’s attorney countered that FIFRA allows state-law claims that parallel federal requirements, relying on the Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences. He argued that EPA registration alone does not shield manufacturers from liability when juries find warning labels inadequate.
During arguments the justices appeared divided, with some expressing concern about preserving state authority to protect residents and others focused on the risks of inconsistent labeling rules across states.
Mifepristone Case Returns to Supreme Court on Emergency Docket
On Friday, a unanimous Fifth Circuit panel issued a nationwide Administrative Procedure Act stay of the FDA’s 2021 and 2023 actions that had lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, reimposing a rule requiring the drug to be prescribed only after an in-person examination. The order blocks both telemedicine prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions, which now account for roughly 60% of all abortions nationwide.
The court found Louisiana had shown irreparable harm, citing the state’s argument that mail-order access undermines its near-total abortion ban; the ruling reverses course from the federal district court in Louisiana, which in April had declined to pause mail availability and instead delayed proceedings until the FDA completes a safety review of mifepristone expected later this year.
On Saturday, manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, routed to Justice Alito as the Fifth Circuit’s circuit justice, seeking immediate stays. Danco told the Court the order “injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions,” while GenBioPro said it has “unleashed regulatory chaos.” Danco also asked the Court to take the case up on the merits, and the two applications will likely be handled together. The companies argue Louisiana lacks standing under FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024), in which a unanimous Supreme Court rejected a nearly identical challenge by anti-abortion doctors for failure to establish standing.
This case also raises the issue of whether a state district court’s rulings can apply on a nationwide basis. The Court limited universal injunctions last year in Trump v. CASA , but left open two alternative routes to broad relief: class actions and claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is the route being used in the mifepristone case. It Will be interesting to see how the Court treats the use of the loophole they left open a year ago.
Comey Indicted Over “86 47” Seashell Post
On April 28, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two counts of threatening President Trump in a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to spell “86 47.” Comey deleted the post, saying he did not realize the numbers could be interpreted as violent, and has indicated he will seek dismissal of the charges.
Legal observers note the case may face challenges under Supreme Court precedents such as Counterman v. Colorado (2023) and Elonis v. United States (2015), which generally require prosecutors to show that a defendant intended a statement as a threat or recklessly disregarded the risk that it would be understood as one. Those standards also distinguish true threats from political hyperbole or statements that do not convey a real possibility of violence.
Even so, legal analysts caution that federal criminal cases are rarely dismissed before trial. Under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, courts typically cannot weigh the strength of the evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage, meaning the government will likely have an opportunity to present its case to a jury unless there is a clear legal defect in the indictment.
👇 Don’t stop scrolling! There is much more below. If this email ends early, tap the “View entire message” link at the bottom or open in the Substack app to finish reading.
Musk v. OpenAI — Trial Gets Underway
The courtroom phase of Musk v. OpenAI began this week in federal court before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, marking the first live testimony in the closely watched dispute over OpenAI’s shift from a nonprofit research lab to a commercial enterprise.
Testifying on the opening days of trial, Elon Musk told jurors that OpenAI’s founding purpose was to operate as a nonprofit counterweight to large technology companies, and accused co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of steering the organization toward private profit in ways he claims violated its original mission. Musk characterized the lawsuit as an effort to prevent what he described as the improper commercialization of a charitable venture. He is seeking to unwind OpenAI’s for-profit restructuring and has requested damages reportedly totaling up to $150 billion.
OpenAI’s counsel pushed back, arguing that Musk left the organization voluntarily after internal disagreements and only renewed his objections years later, after OpenAI’s products gained widespread commercial success. Defense counsel suggested Musk’s claims reflect dissatisfaction with losing influence over the organization rather than a legal breach.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers also addressed conduct outside the courtroom, instructing both Musk and Altman to refrain from disparaging each other publicly during the trial. Both parties agreed to limit public commentary to avoid escalating tensions while the case proceeds.
The first week of testimony focused largely on OpenAI’s early structure, internal disagreements among founders, and the circumstances surrounding Musk’s 2018 departure. Additional testimony is expected to address the legal mechanics of OpenAI’s transition to a for-profit structure and whether that shift violated any enforceable obligations tied to its nonprofit origins.
Taylor Swift Moves to Trademark Voice and Image Against AI Misuse
On April 24, Taylor Swift, through her company TAS Rights Management, filed three trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office aimed at protecting her voice and image from AI-generated imitations.
Two of the filings seek protection for short audio phrases — “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor” — using sound-mark trademarks, a less common but recognized form of trademark protection. A third application covers a specific visual image of Swift performing on stage.
The filings reflect a growing legal strategy among entertainers: using trademark law to address gaps left by copyright and right-of-publicity laws as AI tools become capable of mimicking voices and likenesses. Trademark protection focuses on preventing consumer confusion, which could provide a new pathway to challenge AI-generated content that appears to come from a well-known figure.
Similar efforts are already underway in Hollywood. Earlier this year, Matthew McConaughey secured trademark protections covering elements of his voice, image, and signature phrases.
Whether this strategy will succeed in court remains uncertain, but it signals how artists are adapting legal tools to respond to the rapid growth of generative AI. Congress is also considering related legislation, including the proposed NO FAKES Act.
Former NIAID Adviser Indicted Over COVID-Era Records Handling
On April 28, federal prosecutors in Maryland unsealed an indictment charging former senior NIAID adviser David M. Morens with conspiracy, destruction and concealment of federal records, and related offenses tied to his work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Morens, who served as a longtime adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under then-Director Anthony Fauci from 2006 to 2022, faces multiple felony counts carrying potential prison time if convicted.
Prosecutors allege Morens and two unnamed co-conspirators used his personal Gmail account to conduct official business in order to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and federal recordkeeping requirements. The communications allegedly involved efforts to restore a terminated federal grant connected to coronavirus research, including coordination with a New York-based nonprofit that had partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The indictment also alleges Morens accepted gratuities, including bottles of wine and promised meals, from one of the co-conspirators. Prosecutors claim the gifts were linked to official actions, including a scientific commentary addressing the origins of COVID-19.
Officials emphasized that criminal charges tied to alleged FOIA-evasion conduct are relatively uncommon. The case is expected to focus on whether Morens knowingly used private communications to bypass federal recordkeeping laws and whether any benefits he received were connected to official actions.
Thanks for reading — striking balance, one brief at a time.
Each week, Balanced Briefs will bring you clear, concise, and nonpartisan summaries of legal issues currently moving through the courts or dominating public conversation. Hope you enjoy this week’s issue – subscribe to keep up with future cases and conversations.
Nothing herein constitutes legal, financial, or business advice of any kind.