United States · Appeals · Civil Litigation
Can the government do that? Four August 2026 court rulings on guns, betting, AI and free speech
In two days, federal courts let California's gun-store recording law and Nevada's betting rules stand, and struck down the government's Anthropic ban and two immigration powers used against speech. Kalshi has asked for a rehearing, and deadlines to seek more review run through October 27, 2026.
At a glance
The practical result
- Courts
- 2 Ninth Circuit panels, 2 district judges
- Outcome
- 2 state rules stand, 2 federal actions rejected
- Law
- The Constitution, plus federal trading, agency and immigration laws
- Immediate effect
- Kalshi rehearing pending, 3 deadlines open
In this article
- What connects these four court rulings
- How courts review government restrictions
- California gun dealer law: the surveillance rules stand
- Kalshi in Nevada: prediction markets and state gaming power
- The Anthropic Pentagon ban and federal contractors
- The Stanford Daily lawsuit: free speech and immigration
- How the four cases got here
- What these rulings do not establish
- What happens next
- What to check if a government restriction affects you
- Your questions about these rulings
Short answer: If a government rule or restriction affects your business, your contracts or your visa, four federal rulings from August 27 and 28, 2026 show when a court will stop the government and when it won't. Courts let California's gun-store recording law and Nevada's gaming enforcement stand, and rejected the federal ban on Anthropic and the use of two immigration laws against protected speech. Each ruling is narrow, and each one can still change on further review.
What connects these four court rulings
Each case started the same way. A government official or agency took an action, and a business, a newspaper or a person asked a federal court to stop it. The actions ran from a California recording law for gun stores to a Nevada cease-and-desist letter, a federal ban on one AI company, and two immigration laws used against speech.
The results split two ways. In the two Ninth Circuit appeals, the state rules stood. In the two cases decided by federal trial judges in California, the federal government lost. The question in every case was the same: did the government act within the power the Constitution and Congress gave it?
How courts review government restrictions
Three things decide how much a ruling means for you. The first is the court. A published Ninth Circuit opinion binds the federal courts in the Western states it covers, while a trial judge's ruling decides the case in front of it. The second is the stage. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order made before the full case is heard, and a ruling on one only predicts who is likely to win. The third is the remedy: a declaration states what the law is, an injunction orders someone to act or stop, and vacating an agency action cancels it.
Two of these rulings came from appeals courts reviewing a lower judge's decision, the work appeals lawyers do. The other two were lawsuits against federal officials heard by trial judges, a kind of civil litigation that often turns on the government's written record.
California gun dealer law: the surveillance rules stand
On August 27, 2026, a divided Ninth Circuit panel upheld the dismissal of Richards v. Newsom, the lawsuit against California's gun-store recording law. That law, Penal Code section 26806, requires licensed firearm dealers in California to record their premises around the clock, with indoor audio, and keep the recordings for at least one year. Judge Lucy H. Koh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Ana de Alba. Judge Kenneth K. Lee disagreed in part.
The majority held that the dealers and gun-rights groups had not stated a First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment claim, so the recording duties stay in force. It also said a dealer may still challenge a specific future search as unreasonable. California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel told Courthouse News the plaintiffs will seek further review.
Kalshi in Nevada: prediction markets and state gaming power
KalshiEX runs an exchange registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that oversees futures and similar trading. In January 2025 it began offering sports event contracts, which let users trade on outcomes such as who will win the Super Bowl. In March 2025, the Nevada Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter saying it was running an unlicensed sports pool in Nevada. Kalshi sued, arguing that federal law gives the CFTC sole control and overrides Nevada's gaming laws. A federal court in Nevada first blocked Nevada from acting, then lifted that order.
On August 28, 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision to lift it in KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad. Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote the opinion for a panel that included Judges Bridget S. Bade and Kenneth K. Lee. The court held that Kalshi had not shown that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the main federal law on futures trading, likely overrides Nevada's gaming laws for its sports contracts. The reason: those contracts are sports bets, not "swaps", the financial contracts tied to events with economic consequences that the CFTC controls. The panel sent Kalshi's election contracts back to the trial court, which had not looked at them.
The Ninth Circuit's Kalshi ruling in Nevada predicts who is likely to win rather than settling the case. It also conflicts with the Third Circuit, which reached the opposite result for New Jersey in KalshiEX, LLC v. Flaherty. On September 9, 2026, Kalshi asked the same three judges, and the full Ninth Circuit, to rehear the case. As of September 24, 2026, the court had not ruled on that request. For businesses that offer event contracts, the answer turns on which regulator has the last word, a question that sits between gaming rules and banking and finance law.
The Anthropic Pentagon ban and federal contractors
On February 27, 2026, President Trump directed every federal agency to stop using Anthropic's technology. The same day, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the Department of War, the Pentagon, would label the AI company a supply chain risk and that no contractor, supplier or partner doing business with the military could do any commercial business with Anthropic. A formal designation under 10 U.S.C. section 3252 followed on March 3. Anthropic sued on March 9, and on March 26 Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the government's actions.
On August 27, 2026, Judge Lin ruled for Anthropic on most of its claims without a trial, because the key facts were not in dispute. She found that the actions punished Anthropic for its public criticism, which the First Amendment forbids, and that Anthropic lost its business without the notice and chance to respond the Fifth Amendment requires. She also found the section 3252 designation broke that law and was arbitrary and capricious, meaning the government gave no sensible reason for it. In the court's words, "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics."
The final order in the Anthropic Pentagon case permanently bars the agencies that took part from carrying out the ban. It cancels the section 3252 designation, the order cutting off defense contractors, and nine agencies' steps to carry out the President's directive. It does not force the Department of War to use Anthropic or stop it from moving to other AI providers by lawful means, which matters to anyone holding government contracts that involve AI tools.
Anthropic is not fully cleared. A second label calling it a security risk, made under a different law, 41 U.S.C. section 4713, is still before the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., in No. 26-1049. That court heard argument on May 19, 2026 and had not ruled as of September 24, 2026.
The Stanford Daily lawsuit: free speech and immigration
The Stanford Daily sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Secretary of Homeland Security on August 6, 2025. By the end, the plaintiffs were the newspaper and Jane Doe, a student on an F-1 visa. A second noncitizen plaintiff, a former student, was dropped from the case by agreement on July 27, 2026. They challenged two parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the main federal immigration law: one lets the government seek deportation when the Secretary of State personally decides a person's presence would compromise a compelling foreign policy interest, and the other lets the government revoke a visa at any time.
Both sides agreed on the facts in writing, and a judge, not a jury, heard the case on May 27, 2026. On August 28, 2026, Judge Noël Wise declared both provisions unconstitutional, but only when the government uses them because of protected speech. She held they break the First Amendment because they punish people for their opinions, a point the government conceded, and the Fifth Amendment because they are too vague for people to know what speech is safe. As Reason reported, the court wrote that "freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government's to take."
In the Stanford Daily ruling on noncitizens' free speech rights, the judge stated the law but did not order the government to stop. She said federal law lets only the Supreme Court block the deportation provision, and that an order on visa revocation was not needed at this stage. The judgment covers the two plaintiffs, and the government can appeal it until October 27, 2026. An immigration lawyer can tell you what the ruling means for your own visa.
How the four cases got here
A federal court in Nevada temporarily blocks Nevada from enforcing its gaming laws against Kalshi, an order later lifted.
The Stanford Daily sues over speech-based visa revocation and deportation.
The President and Secretary Hegseth announce the federal bar on Anthropic and its contractor cut-off.
Judge Lin temporarily blocks the Anthropic actions.
Judge Wise hears the Stanford Daily case on facts both sides agreed in writing.
The Ninth Circuit rules in Richards v. Newsom, and Judge Lin enters final judgment for Anthropic.
The Ninth Circuit rules in the Kalshi case, and Judge Wise enters judgment for the Stanford Daily plaintiffs.
Kalshi asks the panel and the full Ninth Circuit to rehear its case.
Extended deadline for the Second Amendment Foundation to seek rehearing in Richards v. Newsom.
End of the 60-day window for the government to appeal the Anthropic judgment.
End of the 60-day window for the government to appeal the Stanford Daily judgment.
What these rulings do not establish
It is easy to read a headline and assume a ruling covers everyone. Each of these has clear edges, and the edges matter as much as the result.
| Ruling | Court and stage | What it decided | What it did not decide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richards v. Newsom | Ninth Circuit, appeal from a dismissal | The lawsuit stated no First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment claim against section 26806. | Whether any specific future search or inspection is reasonable. |
| KalshiEX v. Assad | Ninth Circuit, appeal of a temporary order | Kalshi is unlikely to show federal law overrides Nevada gaming law for its sports contracts. | The final outcome, Kalshi's election contracts, or its pending rehearing request. |
| Anthropic v. Department of War | Trial court, final judgment | The ban, the contractor cut-off and the section 3252 label were unlawful, and are blocked or canceled. | The separate section 4713 label before the D.C. Circuit, or any duty to buy from Anthropic. |
| Stanford Daily v. Rubio | Trial court, judgment after a hearing | Two immigration provisions are unconstitutional when used because of protected speech. | Any order to stop the government, or the outcome for people who did not sue. |
What happens next
In the California case, the Ninth Circuit extended the Second Amendment Foundation's deadline to seek rehearing to October 13, 2026. In the Kalshi case, the court has not yet ruled on Kalshi's September 9 request for a rehearing, and the split with the Third Circuit keeps the question alive for the Supreme Court.
For the two trial-court judgments, federal appeal rules give any party 60 days to appeal when a federal agency or officer is a party. That puts the windows at October 26, 2026 for the Anthropic judgment and October 27, 2026 for the Stanford Daily judgment. According to Judge Lin's August 27 order, the government's earlier appeal of her temporary order in the Anthropic case, No. 26-2011, was paused at both sides' request while the D.C. Circuit decides the related section 4713 case. We will add any new filing or ruling as it happens.
What to check if a government restriction affects you
Check these five things first, before you change a contract, stop offering a product or rely on a ruling you read about. This is general information, not legal advice.
- Which court decided it: a Ninth Circuit opinion binds the Western states it covers, while a trial court judgment decides the case in front of it.
- What stage it reached: a temporary order can change once the full case is heard.
- Who sued: a court's statement of the law or order to stop usually protects only the people who brought the case, not everyone in a similar position.
- What the court actually ordered: stating the law, ordering someone to stop and canceling an agency action each reach different people in different ways.
- Whether a rehearing or appeal is pending: look at the court docket for new filings before you act on the result.
Your questions about these rulings
How broadly does a federal court ruling apply?
It depends on the court. A published Ninth Circuit opinion binds federal courts in the states that circuit covers. A trial court judgment decides the dispute between the parties, and other courts may find it persuasive but do not have to follow it.
What is judicial review of government action?
It is a court's power to decide whether an official or agency acted within the Constitution and the laws Congress passed. In these cases, courts reviewed a state recording law, a state gaming enforcement letter, a federal ban on one company and two immigration laws.
Does an injunction end a dispute permanently?
Not always. An injunction is a court order to do or stop doing something. A temporary one can be lifted, as happened in the Kalshi case, and a permanent one, like the order in the Anthropic case, can still be reversed on appeal.
Why can similar government-power cases have different outcomes?
Each case turns on a different law, a different government actor, a different stage and a different record. A state regulating gambling or gun stores stands on different legal ground from a federal official penalizing a company or a student for speech.
Need a lawyer?
Dealing with something like this?
A ruling like this affects people and businesses differently. A lawyer can explain what it means for you, and we can help you find one.
Juricue is not a law firm and doesn't give legal advice. Contacting us doesn't create an attorney-client relationship.
