In The Courts: July 26, 2026

Thanks for joining us in the courts this week. I'm Katie Barlow. Off the top, the Senate inches closer to confirming Todd Blanch to becoming the next top law enforcement officer in the country. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed his nomination but did not take a final vote in part because Democrats are doing everything they can procedurally to slow things down. On Wednesday, Democrats alone held a session featuring testimony from one of the Epstein victims who met with Blanch after his confirmation hearing the week before. We had approximately four hours to prepare for this meeting and we did so. We went into that meeting in good faith with the hopes of working with Mr. Blanch in the Department of Justice. And we were met with gaslighting. We were met with Mr. Blanch talking around our questions instead of answering them. And we walked away with a feeling of, the best word that I can use is demoralization. It appears North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis continues to lean in favor of confirming Blanch to become the next Attorney General. But he also will need support from Texas Republican John Cornyn. And Cornyn's vote is less clear at this point. Meantime, Blanch is now being called on to consider a criminal probe of former special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted then former President Donald Trump in the classified documents and January 6th cases, that one here in DC. Now, Wednesday night, Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to DOJ for possible willful or intentional misleading statements during his December deposition in Congress. Republicans claim that Smith violated the Constitution by requesting phone records for over a dozen Republican members of Congress while also obtaining gag orders to prevent the members from ever knowing that they were being surveilled. This was all part of Smith's investigation of Trump's action on and around January 6th. Lawfare's Anna Bauer points out that the exchange Jordan's homing in on in this letter captured here, Smith was asked if the toll records that he obtained from senators included content of Jordan says that's a lie. But according to Bauer, the documents released showing Jack Smith's team reviewing text message content came from White House officials via the National Archives, which happened to include exchanges with Congress people. A press release about a congressional referral like this is often just that it's a press release. DOJ doesn't need a referral from Congress or anyone else to open a criminal investigation or take a case before the grand jury. And these facts have been known for quite some time. There's nothing new here. Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin said this referral, if ever brought before a judge, will get laughed out of court. But success on the merits is not the goal. It is meant to harass Jack Smith, and it's meant to please viewership. Above all, it is to create a distraction and that they will not fall for that distraction, and neither will the American people. Meantime, former President Joe Biden has dropped his legal efforts to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter. This all stems from Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointing special counsel Rob Herr, a former Trump DOJ official, as special counsel to investigate Biden's handling of classified documents during and after his time as vice president. While Herr and his team ultimately declined to bring criminal charges, they reviewed these tapes as part of their investigation and made transcripts of the interviews. Now, the conservative backed Heritage Foundation requested the transcripts and recordings through the Freedom of Information Act, and Biden's DOJ balked at providing the documents. But DOJ changed its tune under Trump and said that it was planning on releasing the materials from Herr's investigation. Biden's attorneys filed the notice of voluntary dismissal less than a week after a divided panel of appeals court judges rejected his bid to block the materials release. Meantime, in AI legal news, a federal judge approved a $1.5 billion copyright settlement that will force Anthropic to pay thousands of authors whose books were pirated to train Cod Chatbot. And so this means that each work will receive $3,000 and it's going to equate to, I mean, 500,000 works. So you do the math on that. It's quite a significant amount of money that they do have to pay back. And it seems that while the court is looking at sort of that fair use, because a lot of the platforms are using that as their argument as to why they're training their models, saying basically they're sourcing documents and copyrighted information, but because with generative AI tools, they're actually creating something else from that. They're not really based basically, it's regenerating it word for word. So there's that sort of fair use argument. Indeed, Anthropic's deputy general counsel said that decision showed that training AI on books is fair use under copyright law. So the default rule with copyright material is that you need permission from the creator to use it for your own purposes. But there is an exception to that general rule when you're using it for news and reporting, teaching, or commentary, and that's called fair use. And part of the reasoning behind this exception is actually one of the primary points of copyright law in the first place, both protecting and fostering creativity. Fair use allows people to use and expand upon work for better or worse, and it enshrines a level of protection that is enshrined in the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of expression. AI presents a number of difficult questions about how to protect human creative works while furthering safe technological advancements. Here, the judge said that using copyrighted works to educate the chatbot is not necessarily illegal, but using pirated copies of the works is a no-no and a costly one, as it seems, for Anthropic. The Justice Department has dropped subpoenas seeking testimony from New York Times reporters over their coverage of President Trump's Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet. The subpoenas were part of an investigation into possible leaks of classified information about the plane's security modifications. The Justice Department indicated the broader leak investigation will continue despite withdrawing the subpoenas to reporters. In D.C. this week, a former convicted murderer is fighting to clear his name. Back in 1997, David Black was convicted for killing 78-year-old community activist Alice Chau. Prosecutors said Black shot at a man he was arguing with, but the bullet hit Chau instead. And after 26 years in prison, Black is now out, but supporters are pushing D.C. to consider new evidence that they say exonerates him entirely. I was told 26 years I was locked up. I was dreaming like one day I'm no one. This could be any one of y'all. This could be any one of what's happened to me. Activists say the witnesses contradict the prosecution's story, and a star witness in the case later said under oath that police threatened and beat him. Meanwhile, Montgomery County, the council passed new gun control legislation that could invite a court challenge. The vote was 10 to 1 with overwhelming support for the fast-tracked legislation that defines ghost guns essentially as those lacking a serial number and restricts them for minors. Now, supporters say this bill brings the county into alignment with the Maryland Supreme Court's decision from April striking down the county's restriction of firearms within 100 yards of all places of public assembly. Now, the bill passed narrows the list of public places with that particular restriction, but it still includes parks, places of worship and government buildings. It just says that these are the places because they're places of public assembly where we don't want guns present other than with very narrow exceptions, police officers and the like. And that's the rules. And if you're a law-abiding gun owner, I'm a law-abiding gun owner. I'm not going to bring my gun to one of those places. So I think if you're law-abiding, this is not going to impact you at all. It's just going to say what the rules are. There's certain places where guns can be in a certain places where they can't be. Mark Pennack with gun rights group is already drafting a lawsuit challenging the bill, which will not take effect until tomorrow. As we've learned, the county executive Mark Elridge plans to sign it. Then Pennack and other gun rights activists testified last month that the law targets the wrong group of people. They say it goes after law-abiding gun owners who go through the rigorous process outlined by the state to get a concealed carry permit. There's also concern that although the bill makes an exception for concealed carry permit holders to travel with their firearm on public highways within the county, that that wouldn't block enforcement against someone who steps out of their car to get gas or visit a park restroom while traveling. One of my clients is a former special forces soldier. And he's supremely well-trained. And yet he's not allowed to carry it in a synagogue. These places are targets, including in Montgomery County. And you're basically leaving these places naked. And they can't hire private security guards. Democratic council member Laurieann Sales also voted no. She's concerned about enforcement and that the bill could lead to more stop and frisk searches and policing groups of people who are already over-policed, namely minority residents. Still ahead, Norberto Meza was hit and killed on his moped when he was caught in the middle of a park police pursuit. Tonight, no one has been charged in his death and his family wants answers. They join me next. Welcome back in. According to police, Norberto Meza was killed when a stolen vehicle crossed the median on Howard Taft Bridge last month and slammed into his moped while fleeing a traffic stop. The problem is no one has been charged in this case. And the death happened during a high speed chase with park police. Meza's family and their attorneys are demanding answers. And they join us tonight. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you. Veronica, I want to start with you as his niece. This week, you made a public call for answers. Have you gotten any since then? When families experience this, I'm sorry. That they haven't given them any answers up until now. When families experience tragedy without answers from the justice system, they often get re-traumatized by trying to demand those answers. What makes this worth it for you to speak out to try and get some sense of what happened from authorities? We want answers and we want transparency. We want to know who killed our uncle. Up until now, we haven't received any information. Can you tell us a little bit about your uncle? My uncle played a very key role in our family. He was the youngest of four siblings, so he was very beloved. And this has left a huge pain in our family. And it has also left his children and his wife abandoned. Do you feel like you've been let down by the justice system? Yes, we want clarity, we want answers, we want justice. And it's unjust that after a month, we still haven't received an answer. Yes, we want clarity, we want answers, we want justice. And it's unjust that after a month, we still haven't received any answers. Bernadette, to Veronica's point, there was an innocent man who was killed in broad daylight, on camera, and there's no question of at least the parties involved in what happened. It's not like police are looking for a suspect. How many times in your career has something like that happened and a month goes by with no charges? I mean, it seems extraordinary. It's really upsetting. And you see how Veronica is just struggling to keep it together. And she's been like this for this month, trying to get answers and wanting to get answers. It's really extraordinary for law enforcement to know everyone who was involved, including law enforcement, in this incident, and us to have no more information about why charges were not brought against anybody. And what makes us really suspicious and questionable, frankly, is that initially the drivers, the folks who were supposedly in the car that struck Mr. Meza, were arrested and they were brought to court and those charges were dropped. And since then, the government has said, we don't have the information we need to bring charges against anyone. And that really raises serious questions about what actually happened that night. What did law enforcement find when they reviewed the videos of what happened that night and why they haven't been able to bring charges against anyone for a situation in which a man was killed? It's not like you have a thumb on the scale of who the ultimate suspect is going to be and whether there's a question of whether law enforcement was involved or created a situation that became dangerous or it was the individuals who originally charged. That's not part of what you're looking for. You're just wanting to know what happened and the answers to the very basic factual questions here. We don't even have the basic answers to those factual questions, but we do know there was a police chase and we do know that high-speed police chases are very dangerous. That has been established. And we do know that in the last year, the Trump administration has given US Park Police sort of carte blanche on doing high-speed chases, even when we're talking about pursuing individuals who are not in the middle of or charged with or suspected of a violent crime. And that change in the law has impacted DC greatly. We've had about 21, 22 high-speed chases since that law was changed, multiple fatalities, multiple injuries. And now we have Mr. Mesa, an innocent bystander who was killed because a police chase was in effect. We don't have the answer as to who, how he actually was hit, who hit him, which car, but we do know there was a police chase in effect and this was the outcome. And I believe you understand that this may have all been captured on footage that either the city or MPD has control of. And part of your legal strategy here is somewhat political. It's trying to find a way either through the council or elsewhere to get access to that footage, but you seem to be finding roadblocks. Roadblocks are where we've turned. We've made formal and informal requests of all folks who would have that kind of authority and power and have gotten nowhere. We can't get the basic answer of what the videos in this case show. Most of the streets of DC are covered with videos now, video cameras. Now we know this, certainly that bridge is covered with video cameras, both city controlled and MPD controlled, which is effectively city controlled because it's our city. And we have not been able to get access to view any of that footage. We have not had the opportunity ourselves or Mr. Mesa's family to have closure about what happened or citizens of DC to have an understanding of what kind of action is being taken on our streets that's causing deaths and being able to hold the right people accountable. That's a real issue for obviously the Mesa family, other people who are at risk and for all of DC because really we're all at risk when there's not accountability for police action and the actions of others. Park police tell us that there is an internal review, which happens in every instance like this. And there is also an ongoing investigation that is led by MPD at this point, but no further public statements from them. And we continue to ask the U.S. attorney's office for updates and no additional updates from them as well, including after Veronica's public call earlier this week for answers. Veronica Yesenia and Bernadette, thank you all for joining us this evening. Thank you for having us. We'll have more on in the courts when we come back. Don't go away. Got a story from the headlines this week. The late Chadwick Boseman's family is fighting over his estate six years after the movie star passed away from his battle with colon cancer. His two brothers, Kevin and Derek, are suing his widow on behalf of his parents, according to E! News. They have accused her of improperly distributing assets from his estate as the administrator and want her removed. Cher won her copyright lawsuit against her ex-husband's widow, Mary Bono. But now People magazine reports that she'll have to pony up more than a million dollars for her own legal fees, according to a judge this week. Sonny and Cher were an iconic entertainment duo and married couple throughout the 60s and 70s, charting hits like I Got You, Babe. Cher proved that Mary Bono was withholding rights and royalties from their work together. And yet another fight over a last will and testament. Malcolm Jamal Warner's widow, Tanisha Warner, is suing his mother over promises he made in their prenuptial agreement. Tanisha said in a statement that she had tried to privately settle the matter that is reportedly valued at over one million dollars but has been unsuccessful, according to our sister station in Atlanta. Malcolm died from an accidental drowning while on a family vacation last July at just 54 years old. Time now for Sports in the Courts. Former Dallas Cowboys quarterback and NFL commentator Tony Romo is arrested, has been arrested for possible drunk driving. Romo was pulled over Thursday night in Milwaukee. According to the arrest report, Romo was taken into custody after performing poorly on a standardized field sobriety test. He's facing a first offense OWI charge and has been released from jail. The 46-year-old is scheduled to make his first court appearance September 21st. USA Today published a photo of the alleged bite mark that a woman claims Rams wide receiver Puka Nakua left on her shoulder during an incident on New Year's Eve last year. The original photo was featured in a court filing as the woman seeks damages for assault and battery. Nakua's attorney accused her of trying to turn a minor incident into a multi-million dollar payday. Still ahead tonight, In the Courts will award this week's Legal Loser. Don't go away. Well for this week's Legal Loser, we take a look at these two brands of ice creams. Go ahead and take a look on your screen and see if you can see a difference between Van Leeuwen and Rebel, the keto-friendly lower carb alternative. Van Leeuwen sued Rebel arguing that many consumers would like likely be confused by Rebel's attempt to mimic their trade dress. Trade dress is part of the intellectual property of a product that protects image and packaging. And this week a judge awarded Van Leeuwen 23.8 million dollars from Rebel Creamery's profits and ordered Rebel to repackage its ice cream. That's actually a big deal in the trademark world. It's one thing to win an injunction ordering your competitor to rebrand or redesign packaging, but it's much less common to win your competitor's profits too. We'll be back the same time next week, but until then, have a good night everyone.