What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case; TED Talks, April 2026

 Neal Kumar Katyal , TED Talks ; What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case

"In November 2025, Neal Kumar Katyal was asked to do what no US Supreme Court litigator had ever done: convince the justices to strike down a sitting president's signature initiative. After enlisting the help of four unlikely coaches — and one secret weapon he hasn't told anyone about until now — he walked into the courtroom ready for anything. What he discovered about winning and connecting might just change how you think about performing under pressure."

Neal Katyal draws criticism over TED Talk revealing AI use in SCOTUS tariffs case; ABA Journal, May 11, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT , ABA Journal; Neal Katyal draws criticism over TED Talk revealing AI use in SCOTUS tariffs case

"Attorney Neal Katyal revealed last week that he used artificial intelligence to prepare for his argument against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, drawing swift criticism online. 

Katyal, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Milbank, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in November. According to Bloomberg Law, he said during a TED Talk released Thursday that he “won” using a “bespoke AI system” trained on 25 years of justices’ questions during oral argument and their eventual opinions.

The system was built by Harvey AI, which “predicted many of the questions the justices asked—sometimes almost word for word,” Katyal said in an X post promoting the TED Talk. Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, also credited mindset, improv and meditation coaches for helping him prepare for the argument."

Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits; Ars Technica, May 11, 2026

 JON BRODKIN, Ars Technica ; Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits

"Sony and other major record labels recently suffered a thorough defeat at the Supreme Court in their attempt to make Internet service providers pay huge financial penalties for their customers’ copyright infringement. Sony’s loss is certain to have wide-ranging effects on copyright lawsuits, offering protection for ISPs, their customers, and potentially other technology companies whose services can be used for both legal and illegal purposes.

In Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court ruled that cable Internet firm Cox is not liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when its customers use their broadband connections to download or upload pirated materials."

Why A Potential Supreme Court Copyright Decision Could Change The Music Business; Forbes, April 9, 2026

 Bill Hochberg, Forbes; Why A Potential Supreme Court Copyright Decision Could Change The Music Business 

"There’s billions at stake for music companies and investors who may get a big hit – and not the kind they like – if the U.S. Supreme Court decides music creators and their heirs can get back their copyrights worldwide."

SCOTUS Rules Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Unconstitutional; Psychology Today, April 4, 2026

Allan E. Barsky PhD, MSW, JD, Psychology Today; SCOTUS Rules Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Unconstitutional

Recent SCOTUS conversion therapy ruling gives rise to ethical and legal conflicts.

• "The Supreme Court suggests that state bans on conversion therapy might be unconstitutional.
• Regardless of whether state bans are constitutional, conversion therapy is harmful.
• Mental health professionals' ethical duties to clients include doing no harm.
• Even if conversion therapy is found to be legally permissible, it is unethical."

Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion; Bloomberg Law, April 3, 2026

 

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion

"US Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter said the Supreme Court put “little thought” into the implications of its recent decision absolving an internet service provider for not shuttering accounts of users who repeatedly pirated music.

"The throwing out of many, many decades of copyright law on secondary liability so quickly and with so little analysis was shocking," Perlmutter said Friday at a Stanford Law School event."

The Supreme Court’s Decision on Indirect Internet Copyright Liability Could Have Far-Reaching Effects; The National Law Review, April 1, 2026

Jeffrey D. Dyess, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP , The National Law Review ; The Supreme Court’s Decision on Indirect Internet Copyright Liability Could Have Far-Reaching Effects

"On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that will reshape not only how copyright law applies to the internet for years to come, but could impact other areas of intellectual property law as well. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Court held that internet service providers cannot be held indirectly liable for their customers’ copyright infringement simply because the ISPs knew the infringement was happening but failed to prevent it. The decision reversed and remanded a billion-dollar judgment against ISP Cox Communications and drew a more clearly defined line around secondary copyright liability."

Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 26, 2026

 BETTY GEDLU , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers

"In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that contributory liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service that it knows is tailored for infringement.

This framework closely tracks the approach EFF urged in our amicus brief. As we explained, courts should look to patent law for guidance in defining the boundaries of secondary copyright liability. Patent law recognizes liability where a defendant actively induces infringement, or distributes a product knowing that it lacks substantial non-infringing uses. The Court’s opinion adopts that same basic structure."

Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads; Fox News, March 25, 2026

 Eric Mack, Fox News ; Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict."

Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music; The New York Times, March 25, 2026

 Ann E. Marimow, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music

Leading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music.

"The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet provider could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online in a closely watched copyright clash."

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment; SCOTUSblog, March 25, 2026

 SCOTUSblog; Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

"Holding: Internet service provider Cox Communications neither induced its users’ infringement of copyrighted works nor provided a service tailored to infringement, and accordingly Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 25, 2026. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Jackson."

A Long-Running AI Copyright Question Gets an Answer as Supreme Court Stays Mum; CNET, March 4, 2026

 Omar Gallaga, CNET ; A Long-Running AI Copyright Question Gets an Answer as Supreme Court Stays Mum

The man behind the AI-generated image in question reflects on what he calls a "philosophical milestone."

"A legal battle over AI copyright that has gone on for more than a decade may have reached its end, with the US Supreme Court declining to hear a case involving AI-generated visual art...

In an email to CNET, Thaler said that although the court declined to hear his appeal, "I see this moment as a philosophical milestone rather than a defeat."

While he's unsure if legal action will continue, Thaler says he's still certain that the law on copyright, as written, is intended to exclude nonhuman inventors.

"By bringing DABUS into the legal system, I confronted a question long confined to theory: whether invention and creativity must remain tied to humans or whether autonomous computational processes could genuinely originate ideas," Thaler said."

US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material; Reuters, March 2, 2026

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up the ​issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning ‌away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office ​decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ​because it did not have a human creator."

Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court; Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2026

The Editorial Board , Wall Street Journal; Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court

He calls the Justices who ruled against him ‘very unpatriotic’ and ‘fools.’

"President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency."

Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts; CNN, February 17, 2026

Tierney Sneed, CNN; Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts

"The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will start using software to assist in justices’ decisions to recuse themselves from cases that present a potential conflict of interest.

A brief press release issued by the court described an electronic matching process already used by some lower courts to compare a case’s parties to lists judges assemble of individuals and organizations they have ties to. A 2023 code of conduct statement from the justices said they were considering adopting such a tool themselves.

“This software will be used to run automated recusal checks by comparing information about parties and attorneys in a case with lists created by each Justice’s chambers,” the press release said. “The system was designed and created by the Court’s Office of Information Technology in cooperation with the Court’s Legal Office and Clerk’s Office.”"

High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says; Bloomberg Law, January 26, 2026

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says

"The US Solicitor General advised the US Supreme Court not to take up a computer scientist’s petition to consider whether AI could be an author under copyright law.

A decision foreclosing nonhuman authorship for Stephen Thaler’s Creativity Machine didn’t conflict with any in other circuits or raise complicated questions about protections for artificial intelligence-assisted work by human authors, the Jan. 23 filing said."

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County; Library Journal, December 16, 2025

Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County

 "THE LONG GAME

While this is a disheartening development for the plaintiffs, Dan Novack, VP and Associate General Counsel at PRH, feels that a favorable precedent could still be set at the Supreme Court level. PRH has several cases in play, including Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins, challenging Iowa’s SF496 in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson , fighting Florida’s HB 1069 in the Eleventh Circuit. Both are scheduled to be heard in early 2026.

Given that it only takes about one percent of the cases put forward to it every year, “when there is a traffic jam of cases, as there is in this emerging area of law, it’s really not uncommon for the Supreme Court to sit back and let it play out,” Novack told LJ. If the other cases are also decided against the freedom to read, the Supreme Court may not see the need to step in. But if rulings are split, it may choose to take on one of the cases.

If the Supreme Court had taken Little v. Llano, it could have resulted in a positive ruling coming sooner. But “I’m taking the longer view that it’s good to be presenting more options to the Court, and if they were to take a Penguin Random House case, I feel very strong about the merits of those cases,” said Novack.

Even Llano County’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, in his brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit ruling, stated that “The Court should wait and allow these [circuit] courts to weigh in on whether and how the Speech Clause applies to library-book removals before jumping in to resolve this issue.”

Novack acknowledges that this decision is a hard one for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. “Something went very wrong in the Fifth Circuit,” he said. But PRH and its council are committed to a multi-year fight that could potentially reach the Supreme Court and set precedent for the right to read throughout the United States.

“Although our lawsuit has come to a disappointing end,” Leila Green Little, lead plaintiff in the case, told LJ, “I am encouraged by the many people across the country who continue our fight in the courtrooms, their local libraries, and our state and federal legislative chambers.”"

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Texas Library Case: List of Banned Books; Newsweek, December 8, 2025

Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant , Newsweek; Supreme Court Won’t Hear Texas Library Case: List of Banned Books

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a Texas county’s removal of 17 books from its public libraries, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed the purge. 

The books targeted by officials span topics including sexuality, gender identity, racism and even juvenile humor.

Residents who sued argued the removals violated their First Amendment right to receive information, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim. 

The Supreme Court’s decision means the ruling now applies across Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi."

Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, December 2, 2025

Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

 "My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."

US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels; Reuters, December 1, 2025

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels

"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.

The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."