Standing tracker · every date and state computed from the record · Current through · Last editorial review October 1, 2026 · Original snapshot September 18, 2026, 3:00 PM PT
Litigation docket: what a court has actually decided
A complaint is not a holding, an agency finding is not a judgment, and an affirmance is not finality. Each case here carries one lifecycle state and names the document that controls it.
Snapshot cutoff
Record through
Sources checked
Why litigation is kept apart from enforcement
An enforcement action is something an agency does. A case is something a court decides. Filing a complaint, obtaining an agency finding, settling, and losing on summary judgment are four different legal events, and only one of them produces a holding a later court must reckon with. Enforcement Watch records the first kind; this docket records the second.
The controlling document is the court’s own opinion or order. A press release describing a case is never the authority for what the case held.
Cases on the docket
Appellate decisionFifth Circuit · No. 25-50661 · 26 Aug 2026
National Infusion Center Association v. Kennedy
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Docket
No. 25-50661
Decided
26 August 2026 (Southwick, J.)
Posture
Appeal from summary judgment for the government
Result
Judgment for the government affirmed
Nondelegation
Rejected — intelligible principle supplied
Excessive Fines
Rejected — § 5000D excise not a punitive fine
Due process
No protected property or liberty interest; Medicare participation voluntary
Finality
Not final — rehearing and certiorari remain available
Controlling document
Slip opinion of the court
What this does not establish. A decision on facial constitutional challenges is not a ruling that every application of the negotiation programme is lawful. As-applied disputes about a particular manufacturer or a particular maximum fair price are untouched.
Twenty-three states v. HHS — Title X funding conditions
Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Docket
Not yet read — not stated
Filed
27 August 2026
Plaintiffs
Twenty-three states, California among them
Relief sought
Declaration that the funding conditions are unlawful; injunction against enforcement
Holding
None — no merits ruling exists
Lifecycle
COMPLAINT FILED
What this does not establish. Every characterisation of the conditions in the filing is a plaintiff’s contention. An attorney general’s legal conclusion is advocacy, not a holding.
An appellate court has now resolved the facial constitutional challenges to Medicare drug-price negotiation, and a multistate challenge to Title X conditions has been filed.
What did not change
Neither case changes any clinical duty today. The negotiation programme operated during the litigation and continues to; the Title X conditions are in force unless and until a court says otherwise.
Why it matters
Agency findings, settlements and court judgments are routinely reported in the same sentence. Read that way, a contested finding becomes a verdict and a settlement becomes an admission. Separating the ladder is the whole point.
Primary authority
The court’s own opinion in the first case; the filed complaint in the second. Nothing on this page rests on a summary of either.