Summary: District of Columbia Circuit panel questions legality of Pentagon censure Senator Mark Kelly challenges retaliation over free speech Judge Florence Pan highlights military disobedience doctrine A U.S. federal appeals court at a hearing on May 7 appeared skeptical that the Trump administration‘s could legally punish Democratic U.S. Senator Mark Kelly over public remarks he made urging service members to refuse unlawful orders. Members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit expressed criticism of the government’s efforts to censure Kelly, a retired Navy captain and Arizona Democrat, over more than an hour of questioning. “These are people who serve their country. Many of them put their lives on the line,” Circuit Judge Florence Pan told a Justice Department lawyer. “You’re saying that they have to give up their retired status in order to say something that is a textbook example — taught at West Point and the Naval Academy — that you can disobey illegal orders?” Kelly spoke outside the courthouse in downtown Washington after the hearing. “This was a day in court not just for me, but for the First Amendment rights of millions of us,” Kelly said. The Pentagon and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kelly sued the Pentagon in January, alleging the move by Republican President Donald Trump’s administration to demote him and reduce his retirement pay was retaliatory and violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech. The Pentagon appealed after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration in February from pursuing its campaign to censure Kelly. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to sanction Kelly, a former astronaut, after Kelly took part in a November 2025 video amid rising criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard in U.S. cities and authorization of lethal strikes on suspected Latin American drug smuggling boats. In the clip, Kelly stated: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.” The government’s lawyer told the appeals court on Thursday that the Constitution does not protect speech by military officers who urge disobedience to lawful orders, even if the officer is retired. “It’s very clear that this is about a pattern and totality of conduct, not any one line or any one statement taken in isolation,” Justice Department lawyer John Bailey told the court. Retired officers remain part of the armed forces, are subject to recall to active duty and can influence service members, the Trump administration argued. Kelly’s lawyers countered that the Pentagon’s actions amounted to retaliation against protected political speech on matters of public concern. “The punishments imposed on Senator Kelly are textbook retaliation against disfavored speech,” Kelly’s lawyer, Benjamin Mizer, argued to the appeals court. “The censure letter says on its face that it’s targeting the Senator for his public statements.” (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Nick Zieminski)

Summary: Supreme Court denies Apple's request to pause contempt order 9th U.S. Circuit Court upheld contempt ruling against Apple Epic Games challenges Apple's App Store commission policies The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on May 6 Apple’s request to temporarily block a judicial order that found the iPhone maker in violation of sweeping court-mandated changes to its lucrative App Store as part of an antitrust lawsuit by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting App Store fees. The Supreme Court’s action means Apple will return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to quarrel over what commission the company can lawfully charge for certain app-related transactions. Apple’s bid at the Supreme Court had been aimed at staving off returning to the trial court while it pursued its legal challenge before the justices. Epic Games Chief Executive Tim Sweeney said in a statement that “the Supreme Court has considered Apple’s delaying motion and found it unworthy.” Apple did not immediately provide comment. Apple and Epic have clashed for years over the rules governing Apple’s App Store. The contempt ruling and the scope of Apple’s court-ordered obligations are the latest issues in the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. Apple has said the 9th Circuit decision would affect how millions of app purchases are made. Epic Games won the contempt order last year as part of litigation it brought in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple’s control over transactions in applications that use the company’s iOS operating system and its restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers. Apple mostly defeated Epic’s lawsuit, but was required in the judge’s 2021 injunction to let developers include links in their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods. Apple allowed the links but adopted new restrictions, including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Apple charges developers a 30% commission for purchases within the App Store. Epic argued that the new 27% commission flouted the earlier injunction. In 2025, the judge found Apple in civil contempt for violating the injunction. The 9th Circuit in December upheld the judge’s contempt finding but allowed Apple to make new arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods bought in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems. In the district court, Sweeney said, Apple must now disclose the costs involved in reviewing apps that use competing payment systems so developers can be billed accordingly. Apple has denied violating the judge’s order and has argued that the injunction should not be applied to millions of developers beyond Epic Games. “Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States,” Apple told the Supreme Court in a filing. Epic has argued that Apple should not be allowed to sidestep the judge’s original injunction, saying this would “give Apple more time to continue unfairly profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers.” (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Will Dunham)

Summary: Georgia Supreme Court disciplines Deborah Leslie for AI misuse Six-month bar from court and mandatory legal education imposed Fictitious case citations appeared in murder case ruling The Georgia Supreme Court on May 5 disciplined a prosecutor, finding her misuse of artificial intelligence tools led to fake and misleading case citations appearing in a murder case ruling. The state’s high court barred Deborah Leslie, a Clayton County assistant district attorney, from appearing before the justices for six months and ordered her to complete additional legal education on ethics, brief writing and proper AI use. The court found that “numerous fictitious or misattributed case citations” appeared in a lower court’s 2025 order denying a murder defendant’s bid for a new trial. “Citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court’s rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers,” Justice Benjamin Land wrote. SOME ATTORNEYS FAIL TO VET AI RESULTS State and federal courts across the country have disciplined attorneys for using generative AI tools for legal research and drafting without vetting the results. The Georgia case is among the rarer instances involving a prosecutor’s use of AI, and stands out because the lawyers’ AI errors were repeated in a court opinion. Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Leslie apologized in an earlier court filing for failing to independently verify the AI-generated citations. The sanction came in the appeal of Hannah Payne, who was sentenced to life in prison plus 13 years for the murder and false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring. Leslie’s AI-generated false citations appeared in a proposed order she prepared, urging the trial judge to deny a request for a new trial. The judge adopted much of the proposed order, including fabricated citations, in denying Payne’s request, the Georgia Supreme Court said. The state justices on May 5 urged trial judges to review proposed orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used.” The justices vacated the earlier ruling and sent the case back to the trial judge, directing that a new order be issued without fictitious citations. “Hannah Payne has strong issues for appeal. It is a shame that the State’s misconduct is now delaying her opportunity to have those issues be decided,” her lawyer, Andrew Fleischman, said in a statement. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, Rod Nickel)