The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling on the always blurry “fair use” concept in copyright law, that stands to reduce nuisance suits and open new doors for innovation and adaptation.

In the state of California, the popular ridesharing service Uber is under serious attack. We’ve covered how earlier this year, the California Labor Commission issued a ruling that the company’s drivers should be classified as employees, rather than the independent contractors Uber claims they are. This classification has major implications for Uber and all similar services in the future, since employees are subject to massive labor regulations from which contractors are exempt. The cost of complying with these regulations would be crippling, if not fatal, for Uber’s services in California, and the door would be closed on any businesses with a similarly innovative business model in the future.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the EPA, stopping a controversial water regulation in 13 states. The states in question are suing to stop the new water rule, which would violate private property rights and substantially harm individuals and businesses alike. The injunction stops the EPA from enforcing its rule until the results of the lawsuit are decided.

A federal judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Baltimore has issued an important ruling with broad implications for cell phone privacy. According to the Court, law enforcement needs to get a warrant before seizing cell phone records that contained detailed information on the owner’s location.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a restriction that limits the use of teeth-whitening LED lights to licensed dentists. Not only does this requirement make no sense, the court reached some extreme conclusions in their decision.

The Fourth Circuit has joined a growing number of courts, including the Supreme Court, in slapping down actions by the EPA. The court recently denied the EPA’s challenge to a discovery order from a federal judge in West Virginia.

The Supreme Court has now largely upheld ObamaCare, with a carve-out from the contraceptive mandate for closely held companies, the first three times the law has been challenged in the Court. Because of this, it is difficult to have much faith that the Court will ever overturn the law based on constitutional concerns. However, there is still another case working its way through the DC Circuit, Sissel v. HHS, challenging ObamaCare based on the Origination Clause.

Chevron deference has been used by the Supreme Court since 1984. Since that time, federal agencies have been able to capture more and more power over the American people.

On their last day in session this term, the Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The plaintiffs are challenging the public-sector “agency shop” arrangements that were validated by the Supreme Court decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977.

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.