The Brief, August 12, 2026
NATIONAL
On August 7, a divided D.C. Circuit panel in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service (Nos. 26-5123, 26-5134, published) affirmed the injunction blocking the 90,000 square foot White House ballroom, holding "[w]hether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help." Judge Rao dissented, and the panel stayed its ruling fourteen days for Supreme Court review, so expect an emergency application within two weeks.
President Trump signed Executive Order 14418 on August 6, six weeks after the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara struck down the 2025 birthright citizenship order; the new version targets children of designated foreign terrorist organization members, foreign government employees, and "birth tourism" arrangements. On August 11, class counsel asked the District of New Hampshire to confirm the existing class-wide injunction covers these children too, arguing, as reported in counsel's release, that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment is not subject to executive (or legislative) revision." Nothing takes effect before the court rules.
CALIFORNIA & LA
In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America (S287946, filed August 6, unanimous, Justice Corrigan), the court held a single section 998 offer presenting alternative settlement packages "can be valid so long as (1) the offer is structured so that it clearly presents the alternatives available to the offeree, and (2) at least one of the two independent sets of terms is sufficiently certain to permit an accurate valuation at the time the offer was made." Cost shifting against the rejecting plaintiff was affirmed, measured against the highest-valued valid alternative. Pair a hard number with a statutory-remedy option; the categorical invalidity argument is gone.
In Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176, filed August 10, unanimous, Chief Justice Guerrero), the court held that when a litigant who cannot afford a private reporter requests an official verbatim record, "a superior court has a duty to provide some way for the litigant to obtain an official verbatim record, including by electronic recording if an official reporter is unavailable," implying an exception to Government Code section 69957. Request recording on the record at every unreported hearing and cite S288176 if the court balks.
In Leviss v. Madix (B340116, Second District, Division Eight, filed and published August 5), the court affirmed denial of Ariana Madix's anti-SLAPP motion against Rachel Leviss's claims over the alleged sharing of intimate videos, holding at prong one that "Leviss's status as a person in the public eye does not mean that every aspect of her personal life was itself a matter of public concern." A strong prong-one weapon for plaintiffs in Civil Code 1708.85 and privacy cases.
ORANGE COUNTY
As reported August 5 by Voice of OC, City Attorney Aaron Harp has asked Orange County Superior Court Judge Julianne Bancroft to block a ballot initiative, funded almost entirely by developer Ken Picerne, that would replace Newport Beach's state-approved housing element with zoning for far fewer homes. The city's brief argues, as reported, "[b]ecause the Initiative is beyond the power of the electorate to adopt, it cannot be placed on the ballot"; the court must rule by August 28. A live template for pre-election writ practice where the Elections Code meets housing element preemption.
In the week's published opinion from Santa Ana's appellate court, People v. McAlister (G064690, filed August 7, on appeal from Orange County Superior Court), the panel held a court resentencing under section 1172.75 may reimpose an originally imposed upper term without the jury findings amended section 1170(b) now requires: "By not extending the new heightened factfinding requirements to defendants previously sentenced to an upper term, the Legislature left them in the same position they were in before resentencing ..." The equal protection challenge failed. Published local authority for the steady volume of 1172.75 resentencings in Orange County.
AI & PRACTICE
In In re BFI Waste Systems of Tennessee (No. 3:22-cv-00605, M.D. Tenn., August 6), Magistrate Judge Luke Evans found attorney Louis Ringger III violated Rule 11 after a filing contained hallucinated quotations traced to unchecked AI output: "Attorney Ringger has violated Rule 11 and is hereby publicly reprimanded through this order," plus $1,500 to the Clerk within 30 days. The order observes that "artificial intelligence combines the illusion of thorough review and analysis with the temptations of speed and low cost." The public reprimand outlasts the fine; verify every AI-touched filing.
In Kadlaskar v. USCIS (No. 4:25CV3025, D. Neb., August 6), Senior Judge Joseph Bataillon caught counsel citing Peterson v. U.S. Retirement Board, 785 F.2d 245 (8th Cir. 1986), and wrote: "However, that case does not exist." The court issued a warning rather than a fine, citing local rule NECivR 7.1(d)(2), which already requires parties "if using generative artificial intelligence programs, to verify the contents of their filings." Check the local rules everywhere you file: the first slip may be the only free one.