In partnership with
On the eve of a closely watched antitrust trial that could reshape the live entertainment business, the Justice Department has urged a federal judge to reject Live Nation Entertainment’s effort to secure an immediate appeal of key pretrial rulings.
The Lithium Boom is Heating Up
Thanks to growing demand, lithium stock prices grew 2X+ from June 2025 to January 2026. $ALB climbed as high as 227%. $LAC hit 151%. $SQM, 159%.
This $1B unicorn’s patented technology can recover 3X more lithium than traditional methods. That’s earned investment from leaders like General Motors.
Now they’re preparing for commercial production just as experts project 5X demand growth by 2040. They’ve announced what could be one of the US’ largest lithium production facilities and have rights to approximately 150,000 lithium-rich acres across North and South America.
Unlike public stocks, you can buy private EnergyX shares alongside 40,000+ other investors. Invest for $11/share by the 2/26 deadline.
This is a paid advertisement for EnergyX Regulation A offering. Please read the offering circular at invest.energyx.com. Under Regulation A, a company may change its share price by up to 20% without requalifying the offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a filing this week in Federal District Court in Manhattan, government lawyers argued that Live Nation’s request for an interlocutory appeal barred by statute.
Interlocutory appeals are permitted only in exceptional circumstances and require a district judge to find that an order involves a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question and that immediate review would materially advance the ultimate resolution of the case. Even when those criteria are met, appellate courts frequently decline to hear such appeals.
Live Nation has asked the court to certify two pretrial rulings that it contends raise significant legal questions, including issues related to market definition and the structure of tying claims under federal antitrust law. The company has argued that immediate appellate guidance could streamline the case and potentially narrow the scope of the trial.
The government sees the issue much differently.
In its Tuesday filing, the Justice Department contends that Live Nation’s appeal request is barred by the Expediting Act, a statute enacted to govern appeals in civil antitrust cases. The law provides that interlocutory appeals in such cases may only proceed under limited circumstances involving injunctions.
The DOJ argues that Congress has already barred the type of appeal Live Nation is attempting to pursue. The Expediting Act, prosecutors maintain, was written to prevent major antitrust enforcement actions from being stalled by mid-case appeals like the one filed by Live Nation.
Live Nation has pointed to the presence of 41 state attorneys general in the case as an exception to the Expediting Act, but the Justice Department argues that those factors do not remove the case from the Expediting Act’s reach, given that the federal government is the principal complainant seeking injunctive remedies.
If the court agrees with that interpretation, the motion would be denied, the DOJ argues, who also notes that Live Nation fails to meet several requirements needed for interlocutory review.
The first requirement — that the order involve a controlling question of law — is typically reserved for legal questions that can be resolved without reexamining the factual record. In complex antitrust cases, however, disputes over market definition, competitive effects and alleged tying arrangements are usually closely intertwined with evidence developed through discovery.
Government lawyers argue that Live Nation’s proposed questions are not abstract legal disputes but fact-intensive matters that would require an appellate court to scrutinize the evidentiary record — a step courts generally avoid before final judgment.
The second requirement — the existence of substantial ground for difference of opinion — requires conflicting legal opinions or genuine uncertainty in the law. The government maintains that Live Nation hasn’t identified any meaningful split among courts on the applicable legal standards.
The third factor is timing. To qualify for certification, an immediate appeal must materially advance the termination of the litigation. Live Nation’s appeal motion was filed on the eve of trial. Granting it would likely delay the case for months as the appellate court considers whether to accept the appeal and eventually hears arguments on it.
Federal courts routinely deny interlocutory appeals when they would delay a case’s resolution. The DOJ argues that Live Nation’s appeal would mean postponement of a trial that has been long in preparation, involving extensive discovery and coordination with state enforcers.
For the broader music business, the procedural dispute is more than technical. An interlocutory appeal could delay what has become one of the most consequential antitrust trials in recent memory. A denial would clear the path for the case to proceed to a jury as scheduled, followed by appellate review after a verdict is reached.
The court’s ruling on the motion will signal whether this case remains on its current course — or enters a potentially protracted detour through the appellate courts before any witnesses takes the stand.
