The Brief, August 19, 2026
NATIONAL
On August 13 the Solicitor General filed emergency application 26A203 asking the Supreme Court to stay the injunction the D.C. Circuit affirmed August 7, arguing it "would wrongfully install a single district judge as sole arbiter" of what construction is needed to protect the President. The National Trust's opposition and five amicus briefs landed August 18, and no ruling had issued as of this morning. The D.C. Circuit's fourteen day self-stay expires this week, so an order is imminent.
In Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz (Nos. 25-2152, 26-1094, published August 13, Dunlap, J., dissenting), the court held that "[n]oncitizens like Guerrero Orellana who are present in the United States without admission are not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention provision, but rather, are governed by § 1226," affirming District of Massachusetts class relief requiring bond hearings. It is the first published circuit ruling on the no-bond policy, and the dissent invites further review.
CALIFORNIA & LA
The Assembly Appropriations Committee voted SB 690 (Caballero) off the suspense file August 13, sending it to the floor before the August 31 end of session. As amended July 1, the bill removes the private right of action for pen register and trap-and-trace claims under Penal Code section 638.51, the theory behind most website-tracking suits, leaving enforcement to the Attorney General; firm analyses report the change would reach back two years, covering pending cases. CIPA plaintiffs and defendants alike should watch the floor vote.
In Mary D. v. McCauley (A170749, First District, Division Four, published August 12), the incarcerated defendant, out of funds for counsel, later recovered money and asked to continue trial to retain a lawyer; the court refused, he tried the case himself by videoconference from prison, and the jury awarded 21.35 million dollars including 5 million punitive. The Court of Appeal reversed it all: "We agree with McCauley that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by denying his continuance requests." Opposing a continuance sought to retain counsel can cost your client the entire judgment.
ORANGE COUNTY
A week after a Samsung settlement reported at up to 898 million dollars over five years, Irvine-based Netlist announced August 12 it has filed at the International Trade Commission "seeking exclusion and cease and desist orders against Micron, Supermicro, HPE, and Lenovo," asserting four patents against DDR5 memory modules, plus a companion suit against Micron in the Central District of California on two of them. The Federal Circuit dismissed the Samsung appeal August 17. One of OC's most prolific patent plaintiffs just reloaded in the home district.
The city's suit over the Picerne-funded slow-growth initiative, covered here last week, reached a 9:00 a.m. hearing today before Orange County Superior Court Judge Julianne Bancroft on whether the proponents' Elections Code notice was proper; the judge reportedly questioned the city's timing, prompting an August 18 special City Council meeting. City Attorney Aaron Harp says "[e]nsuring that election laws are followed consistently and fairly is one of the City's most important responsibilities." The Registrar needs a decision by about August 28, so this week decides whether the measure reaches November voters.
As reported August 12 by Voice of OC, a county forensic audit found officials ignored conflict of interest warnings in pandemic contracts approved during imprisoned former Supervisor Andrew Do's tenure, including 132,300 dollars in unverifiable charges within 3.4 million dollars of COVID testing payments and 748,720 dollars in undocumented pharmacy invoices. Supervisor Janet Nguyen said, "Taxpayers deserve to know exactly where their money is going, but the county routinely bypassed its own rules." One supervisor claims the internal auditor referred the former Health Care Agency director to the District Attorney; the auditor and DA have not confirmed it. More OC public corruption work is coming.
AI & PRACTICE
Santa Ana Senator Tom Umberg's SB 574 cleared Assembly Appropriations August 13 as amended and was ordered to third reading August 17, with a floor vote due by August 31. The digest would bar any court filing "containing any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence," and "would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative artificial intelligence tool." New confidentiality and privilege amendments are not yet in the posted text. If it passes, today's sanctions practice becomes a statutory duty with State Bar exposure.
In In re Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3081, D. Ariz., August 12), Bard moved to exclude plaintiffs' materials expert after ChatGPT-linked hallucinated citations surfaced in one of his case-specific reports, arguing his general report's citations were "now suspicious." The MDL court declined to exclude the general report over the AI issue, writing that "[m]ere suspicion is not enough to exclude El-Ghannam's opinions," though it separately excluded two opinions on other grounds. Attacking an opponent's AI use takes citation-by-citation proof, not suspicion.