Prominent Washington lawyer Tom Goldstein is set to square off with federal prosecutors on Jan. 15 as a jury trial begins on criminal charges stemming from the veteran U.S. Supreme Court advocate's side career as a high-stakes poker player. Jurors in Greenbelt, Maryland, will hear arguments from Goldstein's legal team and prosecutors who allege he failed to report millions of dollars he won in poker matches, lied on loan documents and made improper payments through his law firm Goldstein & Russell to fund a lavish lifestyle. Goldstein, who has argued more than 40 cases at the U.S. Supreme Court and founded the SCOTUSblog news and analysis website, pleaded not guilty and has twice turned down an offer of a plea deal by the Justice Department. In a pretrial filing, he said "the government has cherry-picked a few clerical errors and charged them as a crime." The trial is expected to last about four weeks before U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. Goldstein's indictment in January stunned Washington's legal community, where he was widely seen as one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. Goldstein was part of the team that represented Al Gore in the Supreme Court fight over George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidential election. His other clients have included Google and "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. He retired from his law practice in 2023. Goldstein was charged in the final days of Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration. In a November 2024 opinion column in the New York Times, Goldstein urged prosecutors to drop criminal cases against Trump after his election victory, writing that voters had already rendered the "ultimate verdict."

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Jan. 13 over grant funding conditions the state says require it to agree to discriminate against transgender people. The lawsuit is Oregon's first against the Trump administration in 2026. The state sued the administration 52 times in 2025. “Oregon has worked hard to expand access to medical choice and make sure everyone can get the care they need,” Rayfield said in a statement. “This policy uses federal money to interfere with deeply personal medical decisions that belong to patients, families, and their doctors. Agencies shouldn’t be forced to take care away from people just to keep their funding.” Eleven other states are parties to the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island. They include New York, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The lawsuit targets what the states allege is "a novel and ambiguous funding condition" from HHS making receiving some grants dependent on the states following Title IX requirements, including the addition of a Trump executive order. The order, "Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government," calls for the recognition of two sexes and says federal funding cannot "be used to promote gender ideology." The funding goes to federal grants for health, education and research, amounting to more than $300 million for the party states. The suit argues requiring agreement to comply with the order as a term to receive funding goes against Oregon and other states' laws that protect against discrimination because of gender identity. The states' complaint says HHS has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers and the Spending Clause with the funding requirements. The suit asks for the gender conditions to be found unlawful and stopped from being enforced. Oregon filed four suits in 2025 over gender affirming care or threats to funding over gender affirming language.

U.S. Senator Mark Kelly sued U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Jan. 12, saying Pentagon proceedings to demote the Arizona Democrat from his retired Navy captain rank violated Kelly's free speech rights because he urged troops to reject unlawful orders. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, said in his lawsuit in federal court in Washington that the Defense Department’s actions were retaliatory and violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech. The lawsuit asked the court to block Hegseth's review and declare his actions unlawful. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon set a hearing for Jan. 15 on Kelly's request for a temporary restraining order. A Pentagon representative in a statement said it was aware of Kelly's lawsuit but does not comment on pending litigation. In November, Hegseth blasted Kelly for appearing in a video that reminded service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders. In the clip, Kelly stated: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.” Kelly’s remarks came as more Democrats were criticizing Republican President Donald Trump’s decisions to deploy the National Guard in U.S. cities and authorize lethal strikes on boats suspected of smuggling drugs from Latin America. Hegseth issued a censure letter on Jan. 5 accusing Kelly of “conduct unbecoming an officer.” The letter cited Kelly’s public criticism of military leadership and the November video. In a statement on Jan. 12, Kelly said Hegseth's "unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.” Hegseth’s censure of Kelly followed a sweeping shakeup at the Pentagon during Trump’s second term. Several top military leaders were removed, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Navy’s top officer, and the director of the National Security Agency.