Law & Courts — Dalton Daily, Tuesday, October 20, 2026

Supreme Court takes up Maryland magnet-school admissions challenge

Justices will hear claim that a lottery-based process discriminates against Asian American students

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, No. 26-12. The petitioner brings an equal protection challenge to admissions for competitive public magnet middle school programs in Montgomery County, Maryland. The schools use a lottery among students who meet set academic criteria, including locally normed assessment scores. The association says the policies were intended to discriminate against Asian American applicants and cut their admissions. The grant comes after the court's earlier rulings on race in admissions and puts a facially neutral, lottery-based process before the justices. The case will now be briefed and argued. The same day the court also took up a federal home-distilling case and turned away several other petitions.

Why it mattersThe case could decide how courts test race-neutral admissions rules for discriminatory intent, which affects public school systems and other institutions nationwide.

SCOTUSblog: Justices take up case on race and school admissions trade · Dorsey & Whitney: The Supreme Court Update, October 19, 2026 research · NBC News live blog, Oct. 19

Pennsylvania appeals court leaves $816 million Exxon benzene verdict intact

Ruling affirms award to service station mechanic who developed leukemia; Second Circuit also keeps Tylenol suits alive

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania appellate court ruled Thursday that Exxon Mobil cannot escape a judgment of nearly $816 million awarded to a service station mechanic. The mechanic says his exposure to benzene in the company's products caused his leukemia. The decision leaves one of the year's largest individual personal-injury awards in place for now. In a separate product-liability development, the Second Circuit on Friday denied a rehearing request from Tylenol maker Kenvue and several retailers. That court had earlier ruled that a district court wrongly excluded plaintiffs' expert testimony in suits claiming prenatal exposure to the pain reliever causes autism and ADHD. The denial keeps that ruling in force, and the suits can move forward.

Why it mattersLarge toxic-tort judgments surviving appeal, and expert testimony being admitted in mass-tort cases, both raise settlement pressure on defendants across product-liability litigation.

Law360 Product Liability: Exxon Can't Escape $816M Verdict; 2nd Circ. Denies Rehearing in Tylenol Suits trade

FCC rewrites TCPA opt-out rules, but marketing 'revoke all' stays

Order FCC 26-67 narrows the 2024 rule for informational calls and lets callers name an exclusive opt-out method

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-0 on September 30 to amend its Telephone Consumer Protection Act consent-revocation rules, and released the text as FCC 26-67 on October 1 (CG Docket No. 02-278). The order lets callers read an opt-out from an informational call or text as covering only that category, rather than every message from the caller. It also lets callers designate an exclusive way to revoke consent. A STOP to a marketing or telemarketing message still ends all future marketing from that caller. A companion notice seeks comment on shortening the ten-business-day deadline for honoring revocations and on requiring two-way texting. The rules take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication. As of mid-October, no publication date had been reported. The order will replace the January 31, 2027 effective date of the original revoke-all rule.

Why it mattersLead-generation and outbound-calling businesses, and the plaintiffs' lawyers who sue them, will need to rebuild opt-out handling and consent records once the order takes effect.

FCC 26-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking primary · Crowell & Moring client alert on FCC TCPA amendments research

Justices to decide whether Congress can ban home distilling

Fifth and Sixth Circuits split over 19th-century law; Tennessee sits in the Sixth Circuit, which upheld the ban

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt, No. 26-204, which tests the federal ban on distilling spirits at home. The law dates to the 1860s. The Fifth Circuit struck the ban down as an unconstitutional use of Congress's taxing power. The Sixth Circuit, which covers Tennessee, upheld it. The question before the court is whether the prohibition on distilling in a dwelling house, or in a shed, yard or enclosure connected to one, is necessary and proper for carrying out Congress's power to lay and collect taxes. The challenge is brought against the federal government, which seeks to defend the statute. Briefing and argument will follow, with a ruling expected by the end of the term.

Why it mattersThe decision will clarify how far the Necessary and Proper Clause reaches when Congress backs its tax power with outright prohibitions, a question that extends well beyond liquor.

Dorsey & Whitney: The Supreme Court Update, October 19, 2026 research · NBC News live blog, Oct. 19