Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Medicare and Medicaid Signed into BeingOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The signing took place at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman—an early advocate for national health insurance—present and symbolically receiving the first Medicare card. Medicare was designed to provide hospital and medical insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Medicaid, created alongside Medicare, offered healthcare assistance to low-income individuals and families.At the time, nearly half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance. The passage of Medicare was a landmark achievement of Johnson's Great Society initiative and built on decades of political struggle over healthcare reform. The legislation amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and was strongly opposed by many in the medical establishment and conservative politicians who labeled it as “socialized medicine.” Nevertheless, the program gained rapid popularity and provided immediate relief to millions.Administered by the federal government, Medicare initially had two parts: Part A, covering hospital insurance, and Part B, covering outpatient and physician services. It has since evolved to include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and options for private plans (Medicare Advantage). The law reshaped the American healthcare landscape and established the principle that access to healthcare for seniors was a federal responsibility.The U.S. Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and senior Justice Department official, to a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a narrow 50-49 vote. Bove faced unified Democratic opposition and criticism from over 900 former DOJ employees, who claimed he undermined the department's integrity. His nomination prompted a Democratic walkout during the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote and drew sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.Despite controversy, Republicans praised Bove's background as a federal terrorism prosecutor and his legal work defending Trump in several criminal cases. His confirmation shifts the appellate court's balance back in favor of Republican appointees. Critics cited Bove's alleged directives that defied judicial authority and political interference in a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Bove denied wrongdoing in both instances. His confirmation is part of Trump's renewed effort in his second term to reshape the judiciary, following over 230 appointments in his first term. Trump has also nominated another close adviser, Jennifer Mascott, to the same court.Trump lawyer Bove confirmed to US appeals court, overcoming Democratic opposition | ReutersBove Confirmed to Appeals Court After Whistleblowers Emerge (1)A White House crypto task force established by President Trump is set to release a highly anticipated report outlining the administration's policy goals for the digital asset sector. The report, expected Wednesday, will address tokenization, market structure legislation, and a regulatory framework for blockchain-based financial products. Created by executive order shortly after Trump took office in January, the group is led by Bo Hines and includes top officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.The document is expected to support expanded use of tokenization, which converts traditional assets like stocks and real estate into blockchain-based tokens. The report may call on the SEC to create a framework enabling firms like Coinbase to offer tokenized securities, though specific language remains under wraps. It will also outline the White House's preferences for crypto legislation currently advancing in Congress, including follow-up to the recently passed stablecoin law.Trump has made pro-crypto policies a centerpiece of his administration, reversing many of the enforcement actions taken under President Biden, such as lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance. While the industry sees the report as a roadmap for mainstream integration, concerns remain about conflicts of interest, particularly given Trump's financial ties to crypto ventures and meme coins. The administration has denied any ethical violations.White House set to unveil closely watched crypto policy report | ReutersThe Trump administration has formally requested the release of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, citing public interest and mounting pressure over the government's handling of the sex trafficking cases. Prosecutors filed late-night motions with U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer, arguing that the sealed testimony should now be disclosed, though the judges had previously asked for stronger legal justification. Grand jury records are typically secret, with limited exceptions for disclosure.Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing after the Justice Department reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no list of elite clients—a stance that frustrated some Trump supporters who suspect a cover-up. Epstein died in 2019 before his trial; Maxwell, convicted in 2021, is serving a 20-year sentence and has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.In a related effort, a Florida judge recently denied a separate request to release grand jury records from earlier state investigations into Epstein, ruling they did not meet legal exceptions. Even if the federal judges allow the current transcripts to be unsealed, the documents may not reveal new information, since much of the testimony was covered during Maxwell's trial. The transcripts also wouldn't encompass the full scope of investigative material held by the government.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, recently met with Maxwell for two days, reportedly seeking any names or evidence she could provide about others potentially involved. Neither Blanche nor Maxwell's attorney has commented in detail on those meetings.Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts | ReutersA Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $42 million to Paul Lovell, who developed mesothelioma after decades of using the company's talc products. Lovell and his wife sued in 2021, claiming the talc contained asbestos that he unknowingly inhaled, and accused J&J of failing to warn consumers despite knowing the risks. The jury awarded damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs.J&J denied any wrongdoing, calling the verdict “junk science” and saying its products are asbestos-free and safe, with plans to appeal the decision. The company ended U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020. This case adds to a string of multi-million-dollar verdicts against J&J in talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits, although some have been overturned on appeal.J&J is facing over 63,000 active lawsuits, and possibly up to 100,000 claims in total, most alleging ovarian cancer from talc use. The company's attempts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy have failed in court three times, including a $10 billion settlement proposal rejected in March. The Lovell case is part of ongoing litigation that continues to test J&J's legal strategy and product safety claims.Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $42M after jury finds talc caused man's cancer | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Eisenhower Signs Act Creating NASAOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law, officially creating NASA. The legislation emerged in response to growing Cold War tensions and the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik the previous year. It marked a pivotal shift in U.S. federal priorities, establishing a civilian-led space agency to coordinate scientific exploration, aeronautics research, and peaceful uses of space. NASA began operations on October 1, 1958, absorbing the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and ushering in a new era of government-backed technological ambition.Over the decades, NASA has become a symbol of American innovation, from landing astronauts on the moon to deploying the Hubble Space Telescope. Its work has catalyzed advancements not only in spaceflight, but also in climate science, materials engineering, and telecommunications. The legal framework underpinning NASA reflects a national consensus that science and exploration are critical public goods deserving of federal investment and support.But 67 years later, that consensus is showing strain. Just yesterday, NASA announced that nearly 4,000 employees—about 20% of its workforce—are leaving the agency through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program. This mass exodus follows proposed budget cuts and internal restructuring driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in Trump's effort to slash the federal workforce.The timing couldn't be worse. The administration has called for both sweeping workforce reductions and a significant budget cut of nearly 24% for FY 2026, even as it touts long-term funding increases in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Scientists and space advocates, including The Planetary Society, have criticized the inconsistency, calling it a direct threat to American leadership in space. A group of over 300 NASA employees echoed that concern in a public letter this week, denouncing the changes as "rapid and wasteful" and warning that they jeopardize the agency's mission.What began as a proud moment of bipartisan support for science and exploration now faces a political climate where expertise is undervalued and institutional stability is sacrificed for short-term optics.Nearly 4,000 NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation programIn her latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ghislaine Maxwell argues that her 2021 federal sex trafficking conviction should be overturned because it violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) originally struck between Jeffrey Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida. Maxwell contends that the agreement, which shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal charges in exchange for his state-level plea, should have also barred her later prosecution in New York. The Justice Department disputes this, saying the NPA applied only to the Southern District of Florida and does not merit Supreme Court review. Maxwell's brief criticizes the DOJ for focusing on Epstein's misconduct rather than the legal scope of the deal, framing the issue as one of government accountability to its promises. The Second Circuit previously upheld her conviction, finding no evidence that the NPA was meant to apply nationally. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Maxwell, arguing that even atypical agreements must be honored if made by the government. Political tensions surrounding the Epstein case continue to complicate matters, as Maxwell recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche amid renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of Epstein's prosecution. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case in late September.Ghislaine Maxwell Tells Supreme Court Epstein Deal Shielded HerThe Trump administration has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of violating judicial ethics by expressing concerns that the administration might defy court rulings, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. The complaint centers on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, which included Chief Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department argues that these remarks, later echoed in his rulings, undermined judicial impartiality—particularly in a case where Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claims Boasberg acted on a political bias when he found probable cause to hold it in criminal contempt for defying his deportation order. The DOJ has asked the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case and refer the complaint to a special investigative panel. Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama after an earlier nomination to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush, has not publicly responded. The D.C. Circuit stayed his contempt finding, and a final ruling is still pending.Trump administration files misconduct complaint against prominent judge Boasberg | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing her continued refusal to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation to assess her fitness to serve. Despite submitting medical reports from her own experts asserting she is mentally competent, the court concluded that those reports were insufficient and contained inaccuracies, including concerns about memory issues and fainting episodes. Newman's legal team criticized the court's swift decision, arguing that their evidence and arguments were not seriously considered following a recent hearing. Newman, a respected patent law jurist appointed by President Reagan in 1984, is the oldest active federal judge who has not taken senior status and has been a prominent dissenter on the Federal Circuit. The court originally suspended her in 2023 after Chief Judge Kimberly Moore raised concerns about her cognitive and physical condition. Newman sued over the suspension, but her case was dismissed; it is now under review by a separate federal appeals court. The latest ruling reaffirms the court's insistence on comprehensive testing before any reconsideration of her judicial role.US appeals court extends suspension of 98-year-old judge in fitness probe | ReutersDonald Trump has asked a federal court to expedite a deposition of Rupert Murdoch in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 17 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The article claimed Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday greeting that included a suggestive drawing and cryptic references to shared secrets—allegations Trump calls fabricated. In a court filing, Trump's lawyers said he informed Murdoch before publication that the letter was fake, and Murdoch allegedly responded that he would “take care of it,” which they argue demonstrates actual malice—a necessary legal threshold in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump's team is seeking Murdoch's testimony within 15 days, and Judge Darrin Gayles has ordered Murdoch to respond by August 4. The article's release has intensified political scrutiny of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. Legal analysts note Trump faces an uphill battle given the stringent standards for proving defamation, especially against media outlets. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, said it stands by its reporting and intends to vigorously defend the case.Trump asks for swift deposition of Murdoch in Epstein defamation case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the latest shift in federal tax law—the move from the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime to the net controlled foreign corporation tested income (NCTI) system—should push states to reassess their habitual conformity to the Internal Revenue Code. NCTI expands the scope of taxable foreign income for U.S. multinationals, reflecting a broader federal effort to combat base erosion and bolster global competitiveness. But when states automatically conform to these changes—especially through rolling conformity—they risk inheriting complex, federally motivated rules that don't align with their economic interests or legal authority.Rolling conformity is a mechanism by which a state automatically updates its tax code to reflect changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code as they occur, without requiring separate legislative action. While rolling conformity can reduce administrative friction, it's increasingly problematic in an era of aggressive and frequent federal tax rewrites. States adopting NCTI may find themselves without key federal mechanisms like foreign tax credits or Section 250 deductions, exposing them to potential legal challenges over extraterritorial taxation and apportionment. These lawsuits could be expensive, prolonged, and ultimately hinge on issues that federal tax policy has already moved past. I argue that states need to move beyond passive conformity and take an intentional, sovereign approach to tax policy—reviewing conformity statutes now, decoupling where necessary, and preparing to defend their fiscal independence in the face of Washington's rapid policy swings.Trump Tax Law Should Spur States to Split From Federal ‘Pendulum' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: National Security Act of 1947On this day in legal history, July 25, 1947, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, fundamentally reshaping the American national security infrastructure in the wake of World War II. The legislation created a unified framework to coordinate defense and intelligence operations, aiming to prevent the bureaucratic fragmentation that had plagued wartime decision-making. One of its central provisions was the formation of the National Security Council (NSC), designed to advise the president on domestic, foreign, and military policies related to national security.The Act also established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which replaced the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and became the first peacetime intelligence agency tasked with gathering, analyzing, and coordinating intelligence. Additionally, it created the National Military Establishment (later renamed the Department of Defense in 1949), which consolidated the War Department and the Navy Department under a single executive authority.Within the National Military Establishment, the Act preserved the autonomy of the Army and Navy while officially creating a separate branch: the United States Air Force. It also formalized the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide coordinated military advice to civilian leadership. These structural reforms sought to ensure more cohesive planning and execution of U.S. defense policy during a time of growing Cold War tensions.The legislation marked a profound shift in how the federal government approached global strategy, institutionalizing the military-intelligence bureaucracy that would define American power projection for decades. It also laid the legal groundwork for the modern national security state, with broad implications for executive authority, covert operations, and civil-military relations. As Cold War dynamics evolved, the institutions born from this Act became central to both overt diplomacy and covert action around the world.Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence for aiding Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Her legal team argues that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement made with Epstein in Florida should have shielded her and other associates from future federal prosecution. The case raises a significant legal issue: whether plea deals made by one U.S. Attorney's Office bind other federal jurisdictions. This question has divided circuit courts, increasing the chances the Supreme Court might take up the case when justices return from summer recess in late September.The Justice Department under Trump acknowledged the legal split but urged the Court to deny Maxwell's appeal, arguing that plea agreements are binding only between the negotiating parties. Maxwell's defense contends the 2007 deal's broad language promised immunity for co-conspirators nationwide, and that allowing prosecutors to renege undermines trust in the justice system. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supports her petition, citing the widespread use of plea agreements in American jurisprudence.The case unfolds amid renewed political pressure over Epstein-related disclosures, with Trump's administration walking back earlier commitments to release more records. The political sensitivity may affect the Supreme Court's willingness to get involved, especially given the presence of three Trump-appointed justices. Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman noted the unusual breadth of Epstein's original deal might make this a poor case for setting a national precedent, despite its legal significance.Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to implement major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing the cuts align with its broader effort to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. A lower court had blocked the move in June, with U.S. District Judge William Young ruling that the cuts were unlawfully arbitrary and lacked clear justification, violating administrative law. The decision came after lawsuits from a coalition of researchers, public health groups, and 16 states led by Democratic administrations, who argued the grant cancellations were politically motivated and targeted research associated with DEI or gender identity.The administration contends that continuing to pay the $783 million in grants contradicts its policy goals. The Justice Department is also challenging the venue of the lawsuits, arguing they should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in monetary claims against the federal government. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected that argument, refusing to pause Judge Young's ruling.Judge Young, despite being a Reagan appointee, sharply criticized the administration's actions as lacking any rational explanation and as ideologically driven. He noted that officials failed to define DEI while broadly discrediting grant-supported research without evidence. Critics, including NIH employees and scientists, have warned that the cuts undermine scientific integrity and public health.The Supreme Court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been receptive to Trump administration appeals in similar cases. In April, it allowed comparable cuts to teacher training grants to proceed. The administration hopes for a similar result in this case.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts | ReutersGlass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), two leading proxy advisory firms, have filed lawsuits against Texas over a new state law restricting their ability to advise shareholders on environmental, social, governance (ESG), and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matters. Proxy advisors provide independent recommendations to institutional investors—such as pension funds and asset managers—on how to vote on issues at shareholder meetings, including board elections, executive compensation, and corporate policies. This means their influence is significant in shaping corporate governance across markets.The new Texas law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, requires these advisors to include disclaimers stating their recommendations may not be in the financial interest of shareholders and to back up ESG or DEI-related advice with financial analysis. Glass Lewis and ISS argue the law violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to include government-mandated speech that contradicts their independent analysis and perspectives.Filed in federal court in Austin, the lawsuits name Attorney General Ken Paxton as the sole defendant. Both firms contend the law is politically motivated and will damage their reputations, cost them clients, and undermine shareholder oversight of corporate boards. ISS also criticized the law as serving to protect corporate executives from accountability, labeling it "anti-capitalist" and counter to shareholder interests.The legal challenge comes amid a broader rollback of corporate DEI programs nationwide and is part of a trend in Republican-led states to push back against what they see as left-leaning influence in financial decision-making. The law is scheduled to take effect on September 1, unless blocked by the court.Glass Lewis, ISS sue Texas over law limiting DEI, ESG proxy advice | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Enrique Granados.This week's closing theme is Granados' masterwork Goyescas, Op. 11, a piano suite composed in 1911 and widely regarded as the Spanish composer's magnum opus. Subtitled Los majos enamorados (The Gallants in Love), the suite captures the spirit and elegance of 18th-century Madrid, evoking a romanticized world of passionate young lovers, elaborate dress, and melancholic reverie. Granados drew inspiration from the art of Francisco Goya, though the individual pieces are not linked directly to specific paintings. Instead, they are tonal impressions—musical vignettes steeped in the colors and textures of Goya's Spain.Goyescas is divided into two books. Granados premiered Book I on March 11, 1911, at the Palau de la Música Catalana in Barcelona, showcasing his own virtuosic pianism. Book II followed in December of that year and was first performed in Paris at the Salle Pleyel on April 2, 1914. Each movement in the suite is rich with rhythmic flair, lyrical warmth, and emotional depth, capturing the elegance of Spanish courtship rituals and the melancholy undercurrents of unfulfilled longing.The suite's most famous piece, Quejas, o La Maja y el Ruiseñor (Lament, or The Maiden and the Nightingale), would later be famously echoed in the song “Bésame Mucho.” Granados' idiomatic use of ornamentation, rubato, and folkloric rhythms set a high watermark for Spanish piano music and influenced later composers such as Albéniz and Falla. Through Goyescas, Granados created a work that is both a tribute to Goya's vision and a deeply personal expression of turn-of-the-century Spanish romanticism.Without further ado, Enrique Granados' The Gallants in Love, the third movement, El Fandango del Candil. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Grant DiesOn July 23, 1885, Ulysses S. Grant—former president and Union general—died of throat cancer at age 63. While honored as a national hero, Grant spent his final years in financial ruin due to a high-profile fraud scandal. He had invested heavily in a Wall Street brokerage firm, Grant & Ward, run in part by his son and the scheming financier Ferdinand Ward. Ward operated what would now be recognized as a Ponzi scheme, using incoming investments to pay off earlier clients and falsely promising high returns. When the scheme collapsed in 1884, Grant lost virtually everything, and the public was stunned to see a former president facing poverty.Rather than accept charity, Grant chose to write his memoirs as a final act of financial restoration. He completed them just days before his death, and their publication by Mark Twain's publishing house ultimately secured his family's financial future. Meanwhile, Ferdinand Ward was arrested, tried, and convicted of grand larceny in 1885. He served six years in prison, and his case became one of the most publicized white-collar crime prosecutions of the 19th century.Legally, the case underscored the absence of federal oversight in securities and investment practices during the Gilded Age. There were no federal securities laws or regulatory agencies at the time, and prosecution of fraud fell to local authorities using traditional theft statutes. The scandal later became a reference point in discussions around the need for more structured investor protections, eventually influencing the rationale for the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Grant's financial downfall, despite his stature, revealed the vulnerability of even prominent individuals to unchecked financial fraud.A federal judge ruled that President Trump unlawfully removed two Democratic members of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) board. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali held that the firings of Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka in April violated congressional protections that limit when board members can be dismissed. The decision orders both officials reinstated. At the time of their removal, only one board member remained—Republican Chairman Kyle Hauptman—leaving a regulatory gap in oversight of the $2.3 trillion credit union sector.Harper, initially appointed by Trump in 2019 and later elevated to chairman by President Biden, was serving a term set to expire in 2027. Otsuka was confirmed in 2023 with a term ending in 2029. Both argued their dismissals were unprecedented in the NCUA's nearly 50-year history. The Trump administration defended the firings by asserting broad presidential authority to remove such officials at will, a position echoed in other disputes over the limits of executive power at independent agencies. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that certain regulatory positions are protected from politically motivated removals.US judge rules Trump illegally fired two Democratic members of credit union agency | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by eight Malian citizens against Hershey, Nestlé, and five other major cocoa companies. The plaintiffs alleged they were trafficked as children and forced to work under brutal conditions on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. They sought to hold the companies liable under U.S. laws against human trafficking and forced labor. However, the court ruled 3-0 that the complaint failed to plausibly connect the plaintiffs' forced labor to cocoa specifically sourced by the defendants.Judge Justin Walker wrote that while the companies purchase a large share of Ivorian cocoa, the complaint did not establish that the cocoa harvested by the plaintiffs ended up in the defendants' supply chains. The court emphasized that a general connection to a region is insufficient to meet legal standards for liability under trafficking laws. The trial court had previously ruled in favor of the companies in 2022.The plaintiffs' attorney, Terry Collingsworth, criticized the ruling, arguing that global corporations are effectively shielded from accountability by the opacity of their supply chains. He said his clients are considering further legal action. This decision follows a March 2024 ruling by the same court that dismissed similar claims against tech companies over child labor in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Hershey, Nestle, other cocoa companies defeat appeal of child slavery lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey cannot enforce its 2021 law banning new contracts for immigrant detention facilities. The court sided with CoreCivic, a major private prison operator, which had sued the state over the law's potential to block the renewal of its contract for a 300-bed detention center near Newark Airport. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that New Jersey's ban unconstitutionally interferes with federal immigration enforcement, which relies heavily on private detention centers.Writing for the majority, Judge Stephanos Bibas stated that states cannot obstruct the federal government's operational choices, including its use of private contractors. The ruling emphasized that immigration enforcement is a federal domain, and state laws cannot disrupt its execution. Judge Thomas Ambro dissented, arguing the law only regulated state and local government actions, not the federal government directly.The case has national implications, as the federal government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has defended its authority to contract with private facilities for immigration detention. Critics, including New Jersey's attorney general and immigrant rights groups, argue that privatized detention presents serious health and safety risks and prioritizes profit over human rights. The ruling follows similar court decisions, including a 2022 case blocking California's comparable law while upholding a narrower Illinois statute.US court blocks New Jersey ban on immigrant detention in CoreCivic lawsuit | ReutersA federal judge in Manhattan formally dismissed a mail fraud case that had been effectively resolved over three decades ago but never officially closed. The defendant, Yousef Elyaho, was charged in 1991 with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In 1993, he entered a deferred prosecution agreement, and his bond was released, meaning the case should have been dismissed if he complied with the agreement. However, due to an apparent administrative oversight, the case remained open on the docket for 32 years.No legal action occurred until 1999, when the case was oddly marked as reassigned to “Judge Unassigned,” and then sat idle for another 26 years. It was only in 2025 that the case came to the attention of U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, who officially closed it. Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Balsamello acknowledged in a court filing that the government had intended to dismiss the case back in 1993.This unusual situation highlights how clerical errors can leave cases unresolved, despite defendants meeting their legal obligations. The judge's action brings formal closure to a prosecution that, in practice, ended decades ago.US ends a mail fraud case, 32 years late | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes this week:I draw a comparison between ancient Egypt's pyramid-building and the current surge in data center construction across the United States. In both cases, monumental building serves more as a symbol of legitimacy and power than as a practical investment in public welfare. Pharaohs once drained resources to erect ever-larger pyramids, eventually destabilizing their own society. Today, states offer enormous tax incentives to attract data centers—facilities that often generate minimal long-term employment while consuming huge amounts of electricity and water.In the piece, I focus on how these data centers, like the pyramids, have become political symbols. They are marketed as engines of innovation and economic growth but often leave the public footing the bill for infrastructure costs and strained utilities. For example, Pennsylvania passed a $75 million tax exemption for data centers, and similar policies have ballooned to over $1 billion in Texas. Meanwhile, the promised economic benefits frequently fail to materialize.I argue that this race to build tech infrastructure, without considering long-term sustainability or community impact, mirrors a historical pathology: spectacle overtaking substance. These facilities may one day be ruins of a different kind—monuments not to progress, but to political ambition and misaligned priorities.The Pharaohs Built Pyramids—We Build Data Centers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Jane Matilda Bolin Appointed to BenchOn this day in 1939, Jane Matilda Bolin shattered a historic barrier when she was appointed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia as a judge of the city's Domestic Relations Court. With that appointment, Bolin became the first Black woman to serve as a judge in the United States. A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School—where she was the first Black woman to earn a law degree—Bolin entered a profession that had few women and even fewer people of color. Her appointment was more than symbolic; she used her position to advocate for children and families, ensuring fair treatment for all who appeared before her court.Judge Bolin served with distinction for four decades, retiring in 1979. During her tenure, she challenged policies that segregated children based on race in publicly funded childcare agencies and fought to assign probation officers without regard to ethnicity or religion. She approached family law not as a soft discipline, but as a critical area where justice, equity, and social stability intersect. Bolin's presence on the bench helped normalize the inclusion of women—and particularly women of color—in legal authority roles.Her quiet determination and policy reform work made lasting impacts in juvenile justice and child welfare. Despite the deep racial and gender bias of her era, Bolin held fast to a vision of a fairer legal system. Today, her legacy lives on in the increasing diversity of the judiciary and in reforms aimed at making family courts more humane and equitable. Her appointment marked the beginning of a broader movement toward inclusion in American legal institutions.Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal faces a significant procedural hurdle under Florida law, as legal experts point out he may not have followed the state's five-day pre-suit notice requirement for suing a media outlet. Trump filed the suit in Miami federal court, seeking at least $10 billion per defamation count over a July 17 article linking him to a birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that allegedly included a sexually suggestive drawing and reference to shared secrets. The Journal has stood by its reporting and pledged to defend itself.Beyond the timing issue, Trump will also need to meet the demanding “actual malice” standard, which requires public figures to prove that a publication knowingly or recklessly published false information. Legal experts note that simply disputing a claim's truth doesn't suffice—Trump must show the Journal deliberately lied. The large monetary figure Trump is seeking appears to be more for public attention than legal plausibility, especially considering recent precedent like Fox News' $787.5 million settlement with Dominion and Alex Jones' $1.3 billion defamation judgment.Trump's suit follows a pattern of litigation against the press, with mixed outcomes. Courts have dismissed previous cases against CNN and The New York Times, while some outlets like ABC and Paramount have settled. Experts caution that while Trump's case may ultimately fail, his persistent use of defamation claims could chill press freedom due to the high cost of legal defense. The article also draws a parallel to former Trump ally Dan Bongino, whose defamation case was dismissed for a similar procedural misstep.Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle | ReutersFormer Louisville police officer Brett Hankison was sentenced to 33 months in prison for violating Breonna Taylor's civil rights during the 2020 raid that led to her death. The sentence came despite a surprising, that is to say not at all surprising, request from the Trump Justice Department for only a one-day sentence. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings criticized that recommendation, calling it politically influenced and inconsistent with the gravity of the case. Although Hankison didn't fire the fatal shots, a federal jury convicted him in 2024 for endangering Taylor and her neighbors by firing blindly during the raid.Taylor, a Black woman, was killed when officers executed a no-knock warrant at her home. Her boyfriend, thinking the officers were intruders, legally fired a shot, prompting a hail of police gunfire. Her death, along with George Floyd's, fueled nationwide protests against police brutality.Hankison apologized in court, claiming he would have acted differently if he had known the warrant was flawed. The sentence was at the low end of federal guidelines but far exceeded what Trump's Justice Department sought. That sentencing memo was notably unsigned by career prosecutors and was submitted by political appointees, signaling a shift in the department's stance on police accountability.Taylor's family and boyfriend urged the court to impose the maximum penalty, calling the lenient recommendation an insult. Under President Biden, the Justice Department had reversed course, bringing charges in both the Taylor and Floyd cases to hold officers accountable.US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor | ReutersThe Justice Department has appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a directive from President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Jenner & Block. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that Trump's March 25 order violated the firm's First Amendment rights. The directive had cited Jenner's past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation—an affiliation Trump viewed as politically adversarial.Judge Bates found the order to be retaliatory, noting it punished Jenner for its court work and lawyer associations. Trump's order was part of a broader pattern of targeting major law firms linked to perceived political opponents. Other actions under similar orders included attempts to cancel federal contracts, revoke security clearances, and block law firm personnel from federal buildings.Jenner & Block, represented by a legal team from Cooley, said it welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the lower court's ruling on appeal, defending its right to represent clients without political interference. The Justice Department's move mirrors similar appeals in cases involving Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, signaling a continued legal defense of Trump actions against Big Law firms.DOJ Appeals Ruling for Jenner & Block in Trump Big Law BattleMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's recent retreat from enforcing the Johnson Amendment through a consent decree signals a quiet dismantling of the traditional legal framework governing political speech by churches. The Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law, prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While the IRS hasn't officially repealed the rule, its failure to enforce it undermines its authority and creates legal uncertainty. I point out that in today's media environment, religious speech and political messaging often blur, making enforcement even more complicated.I propose a clearer, more functional alternative: creating a new legal category called “Religious-Political Entity.” Under this designation, churches that wish to engage in explicit political activity could do so—provided they accept trade-offs like losing the ability to receive tax-deductible donations, disclosing their political spending, and separating charitable and campaign funds. This approach would preserve the rights of churches to speak on political issues aligned with their missions while drawing a firm line at partisan campaigning.The current ambiguity risks selective enforcement and invites abuse. Only Congress, not courts or ad hoc consent decrees, can craft the statutory structure needed to balance religious free speech with tax law integrity.New ‘Religious-Political Entity' Category Would Clear Up Tax Law This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Liberation of GuamOn July 21, 1944, U.S. forces began the liberation of Guam, a pivotal campaign in the Pacific Theater during World War II. The island, a U.S. territory since 1898, had been under Japanese occupation since December 1941. The American recapture of Guam not only had military significance but also triggered major legal and jurisdictional consequences. With the island's return to U.S. control, questions arose concerning the legal status of the local Chamorro population, many of whom had been subject to forced labor and harsh wartime treatment. The reestablishment of American civil authority required legal reconstruction, including the reinstatement of U.S. territorial law and the resolution of property disputes created by the occupation.One of the key legal developments post-liberation involved the prosecution of Japanese officers for war crimes committed on Guam. These prosecutions were among the early instances of U.S.-led military tribunals, predating the more famous Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. Charges included execution without trial, torture, and mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war. These tribunals contributed to the evolution of international humanitarian law by applying emerging principles of command responsibility and individual accountability.Another legal consequence of the landings was the reinforcement of U.S. sovereignty over Guam, a status that remains complex to this day. In the following years, Congress passed legislation such as the Guam Organic Act of 1950, which granted U.S. citizenship to Chamorros and established a civilian government. However, full political rights, such as voting representation in Congress or participation in presidential elections, remain limited. The events of July 21, 1944, thus mark a significant turning point not only in military history but in the legal and political trajectory of Guam and its people.Harvard University is set to ask a federal judge to reinstate $2.5 billion in federal research funding the Trump administration canceled, claiming the cuts are unlawful retaliation for the school's refusal to comply with government demands. The hearing, scheduled for Monday in Boston, highlights a growing standoff between the university and the White House, which has accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and promoting what it calls radical left ideologies.The administration's pressure campaign began with the cancellation of research grants, citing insufficient response to alleged harassment of Jewish students. It later included threats to Harvard's accreditation, exclusion of international students, and a steep hike in the federal tax on income from its $53 billion endowment. The White House has demanded that Harvard restructure its governance and change hiring and admissions practices to ensure ideological balance—conditions Harvard says infringe on its constitutional rights.President Alan Garber warned that federal actions could cost the university up to $1 billion annually, threatening staff layoffs and halts to vital research. While Harvard has acknowledged past failures in protecting Jewish students, it maintains that the administration's broader demands represent unconstitutional overreach and an attempt to control academic freedom. The university argues that cutting research funds in response to these disagreements violates First Amendment protections. The administration claims the court lacks jurisdiction, citing grant terms that allow funding to be revoked if projects stray from federal objectives.Harvard, Trump administration to face off in court over canceled funding | ReutersA federal judge has blocked enforcement of a Trump executive order that threatened economic and travel sanctions against individuals assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The order, issued in February, sought to penalize anyone—particularly U.S. citizens—who provided services to ICC investigations involving the United States or its allies, such as Israel.The challenge to the order was brought by two human rights advocates who argued it infringed on their First Amendment rights. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen agreed, stating the order unlawfully restricted constitutionally protected speech. She noted that it broadly barred speech-based services to the ICC, regardless of whether those services were tied to investigations of the U.S. or its allies.Among those targeted by the order was ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who was personally sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. The judge found that these sanctions imposed undue penalties on Americans for engaging in advocacy or legal support—activities typically protected under the First Amendment. The ruling marks a significant setback for efforts by the Trump administration to undermine the ICC's authority and shield U.S. and allied officials from international accountability.Federal judge blocks enforcement of Trump's order on ICCAnd a piece I wrote for Forbes over the weekend:When governments propose raising taxes on the wealthy, it often sparks a predictable media and political spectacle—wealthy individuals threaten to leave for lower-tax jurisdictions. My piece explores how, despite this recurring narrative, the data consistently shows these threats are mostly performative. The latest example comes from the U.K., where a centuries-old “non-dom” tax loophole allowing wealthy foreigners to avoid taxes on offshore income was finally closed. Predictably, estate agents and tabloids warned of a mass exodus, echoing similar claims made during a 2017 reform. But back then, just 2% of affected individuals actually left, while the rest paid more in taxes.In the U.S., similar drama unfolded in New York when Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani proposed a millionaire's tax. Business leaders and political opponents warned of an elite flight to Florida, despite historical precedent suggesting otherwise. After California raised taxes on high earners in 2010, the number of millionaires there actually grew. In truth, millionaires move less than the general population—only 2.4% change states annually.The myth of the departing millionaire persists because it serves political ends, not economic truths. It allows opponents of tax reform to claim fiscal responsibility while protecting wealthy donors. Anecdotes—like a billionaire moving to Dubai—make for compelling headlines, but they mask the broader reality: most high-net-worth individuals stay put due to deep social, professional, and institutional ties. The image of the wealthy nomad is more myth than fact, yet it remains politically expedient and media-friendly.When Millionaires Say They're Leaving—They Almost Never Do This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Narcotic Control ActOn July 18, 1956, the Narcotic Control Act was signed into law, marking a significant escalation in the United States' punitive approach to drug policy. The act built upon earlier federal narcotics legislation but went much further in increasing criminal penalties and tightening government control over narcotic drugs and marijuana. Under the new law, first-time offenders faced mandatory minimum sentences, and judges were stripped of discretion in sentencing for many drug crimes. Notably, the act introduced the possibility of the death penalty for those convicted of selling heroin to minors.The legislation was part of a broader postwar shift toward strict federal enforcement and reflected growing political and public fears about drug use, particularly in urban centers. It was championed by figures who saw narcotics as a moral and social threat, linking drug control to national security and public order. The law also expanded the jurisdiction of federal agencies, giving the federal government more authority to investigate and prosecute drug crimes that had previously been handled at the state level.Critics at the time and in later decades argued that the Narcotic Control Act laid the groundwork for mass incarceration and racial disparities in drug enforcement. The harsh penalties disproportionately impacted Black and Latino communities and did little to address the root causes of addiction. Nonetheless, the act stood as a turning point in the federal government's approach to narcotics—a hardline stance that would culminate decades later in the “War on Drugs.”A federal judge in Boston, Leo Sorokin, is considering whether to uphold a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The order, issued in February, would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. after February 19 unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The case is being brought by attorneys general from 18 states and D.C., who argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and would disrupt federal benefit programs like Medicaid and SNAP.The legal challenge has gained new relevance following a June 27 Supreme Court ruling that discouraged lower courts from issuing broad, nationwide injunctions. However, the Court allowed for exceptions, including in class actions or when needed to provide “complete relief.” The states argue that a nationwide block remains necessary due to the wide-reaching impact of the order and the need for consistency across state lines. They also contend that the Supreme Court's recent decision does not apply in this instance.If Judge Sorokin rules in favor of the states, it would mark the second time this month a federal judge has blocked Trump's order. On July 10, Judge Joseph Laplante issued a similar injunction in New Hampshire after finding that children affected by the policy could proceed as a class. The Justice Department maintains that the original injunction was overly broad and asserts that individuals should contest their citizenship status individually.US judge weighs putting new block on Trump's birthright citizenship order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump is calling for the release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein, following backlash from some of his supporters over a recent Justice Department report. The report found no evidence supporting long-standing conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or alleged connections to powerful individuals. In response, Trump labeled the investigation a "scam" and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all relevant grand jury material, pending court approval.Bondi confirmed shortly afterward that the Justice Department is prepared to ask the court to unseal the documents as early as Friday. Her earlier promises to disclose "a lot of names" and "flight logs" related to Epstein had generated anticipation among Trump's base, some of whom now express frustration over the lack of new revelations. Trump has dismissed concerns as politically motivated fabrications.The renewed focus on Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges, has caused a divide among Trump supporters—some of whom feel betrayed by the lack of transparency, while others back Trump's framing of the issue as a partisan hoax. The legal effort to unseal the grand jury materials could reignite public scrutiny over Epstein's connections and the broader handling of his case.Trump asks for release of grand jury documents in Epstein case | ReutersA U.S. appeals court appears likely to lift a temporary block on a Trump executive order that limits collective bargaining rights for federal workers in national security-related agencies. The 9th Circuit panel, composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, questioned whether they had authority to override the president's determination that union activities could interfere with national security functions.The order, issued by President Trump, applies to major departments like Justice, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and parts of Health and Human Services. It greatly expands existing national security exemptions by stripping union rights from a much larger group of federal employees. Judge James Donato had previously blocked the order for 21 agencies, citing potential violations of free speech protections for federal unions.During oral arguments, judges expressed skepticism toward union claims that the order was retaliatory and aimed at silencing opposition. The government's lawyer argued that the president has wide discretion in matters of national security, making his decisions largely immune from judicial review. However, one judge questioned whether there are any real limits to this power.The case could significantly impact how workplace conditions are set across the federal government and whether unions can continue to challenge executive policies in court. A ruling in favor of Trump's position would allow agencies to more easily change employment terms and sideline union input. A related lawsuit challenging union contracts is also pending in Texas.US court seem poised to lift block on Trump curbing union bargaining for federal workers | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Georg Friedrich HandelThis week's closing theme comes from the grand, imaginative world of Georg Friedrich Handel, one of the towering figures of the Baroque era. Born in 1685 in Halle, Germany, Handel made his mark across Europe, eventually becoming a naturalized British citizen and composing some of the most enduring works in Western music. Known for his operas, oratorios, and instrumental compositions, Handel blended German precision, Italian lyricism, and English choral tradition into a distinctive style that was both dramatic and deeply human.Among his lesser-known but richly rewarding operas is Xerxes (HWV 40), premiered in London in 1738. Loosely based on the Persian king Xerxes I, the opera mixes romantic entanglements, comedic elements, and royal intrigue—a blend that puzzled its first audiences but has found appreciation in modern revivals. Its opening aria, “Ombra mai fu”, sung by the title character in praise of a plane tree, is a moment of serene beauty that has outlived the opera's initial failure. Often referred to as Handel's Largo, this aria became wildly popular in the 19th century and is frequently performed at weddings, memorials, and ceremonial events.Xerxes was ahead of its time in its use of shorter arias and flexible structure, which some scholars view as anticipating later developments in operatic form. The character of Xerxes himself—proud, impulsive, and absurdly fixated on love—offered Handel the opportunity to explore both satire and sincerity within the same role. Though the opera was pulled from the stage after only five performances, its revival centuries later has secured its place in the canon.For all his dramatic genius, it is perhaps this simple ode to shade and stillness—Ombra mai fu—that captures Handel at his most tender. This week, we close with that brief moment of musical tranquility, a Baroque lullaby to a tree, sung by a king, composed by a master.Without further ado, Georg Friedrich Handel's  Xerxes, overture. Enjoy!  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Second Confiscation ActOn July 17, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act into law, dramatically expanding federal wartime powers during the Civil War. Building on a more limited first version passed in 1861, the new act authorized the seizure of property—particularly land and slaves—from individuals engaged in or supporting the rebellion. It declared that any Confederate supporter who did not surrender within sixty days would have their property “forfeited and seized” by the United States government. Crucially, the law applied even to those who had not been convicted in court, effectively bypassing traditional due process protections.One of the most controversial aspects was the emancipation provision: slaves of disloyal owners were to be “forever free.” While limited in scope—applying only to territories held by Union forces and to those enslaved by rebels—it marked a key moment in the legal evolution of emancipation as a war aim. Lincoln, a lawyer sensitive to constitutional boundaries, had reservations about the law's due process implications. To address these, he issued a “signing statement” urging that the law be enforced in a way that preserved judicial oversight where possible.Still, the act laid the legal groundwork for broader emancipation efforts, including the Emancipation Proclamation issued six months later. It also reflected increasing pressure from abolitionist Republicans in Congress who sought a more aggressive stance against the Confederacy. The Confiscation Act expanded the Union's legal toolkit for undermining Confederate infrastructure and punishing rebellion, though enforcement was often inconsistent on the ground. It pushed the boundaries of property rights and signaled a shift in federal authority during wartime.A U.S. appeals court appears likely to block the Trump administration's effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants. During oral arguments on July 16, 2025, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the abrupt reversal of TPS protections just days after President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took office. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration's rationale, particularly since the Biden administration had extended TPS protections until October 2026 only two weeks earlier.Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw questioned how conditions in Venezuela could have changed so significantly in such a short timeframe. Government attorney Drew Ensign argued that the Biden administration's extension was legally insufficient and that agencies have the authority to reconsider decisions. However, Judge Anthony Johnstone countered that policy changes must follow proper legal channels, not be masked as legal corrections. Judge Salvador Mendoza raised concerns that Noem and Trump's comments—some of which he described as “arguably racist”—might reflect racial bias in the policy shift.The TPS Alliance, represented by Ahilan Arulanantham, argued that federal law only allows revisions to TPS decisions for minor corrections, not full reversals. District Judge Edward Chen had already blocked the TPS termination in March, citing discriminatory motivations. The case affects Venezuelans who received TPS in 2023, with their status set to expire in April unless court protections remain in place. If the administration's policy holds, earlier TPS recipients from 2021 could also lose their status by September. Several other lawsuits have also challenged the termination of TPS for Venezuelans and Haitians.US judges skeptical of Trump ending Venezuelan migrants' legal status | ReutersNinth Circuit skeptical of Venezuelan immigration status terminations, despite SCOTUS block | Courthouse News ServiceThe U.S. Department of Justice has fired Maurene Comey, a prominent federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, without providing a clear reason. Comey had led high-profile prosecutions, including the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent case against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Two anonymous sources confirmed the dismissal and said Comey received a memo citing the president's Article II constitutional authority to remove federal employees.The move comes amid broader personnel changes at DOJ under the Trump administration, which recently reversed its position on releasing Epstein-related documents—an about-face that has frustrated Trump's supporters. Maurene Comey was part of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and played a key role in Maxwell's 2022 conviction and sentencing. She also prosecuted Combs, who is currently in jail awaiting sentencing for transporting women for prostitution. Although jurors acquitted Combs of the most serious charges, he remains in custody.The dismissal of Comey follows a pattern of DOJ firings under Attorney General Pam Bondi, who recently terminated several prosecutors involved in investigations tied to Trump, including members of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team. James Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, is currently under investigation alongside former CIA Director John Brennan. Neither the DOJ nor Maurene Comey has commented on her termination.US DOJ fires federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, daughter of ex-FBI head James Comey | ReutersEx-FBI Chief James Comey's Daughter Ousted as Federal Prosecutor - BloombergTwenty U.S. states—mostly led by Democratic governors—filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from ending a federal grant program aimed at disaster prevention. The program, known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), was launched in 2018 to help fund infrastructure improvements that protect communities from natural disasters such as floods and wildfires. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues that FEMA acted beyond its legal authority when it terminated the program in April without congressional approval.The states, led by Washington and Massachusetts, assert that ending BRIC violates the separation of powers, as Congress explicitly funded the program and made disaster mitigation a key function of FEMA. They also contend that the decision-makers at FEMA—former acting director Cameron Hamilton and his successor David Richardson—were not lawfully appointed and therefore lacked authority to shut down the program.FEMA defended the decision by claiming the program had become wasteful and politicized, but bipartisan lawmakers criticized the move, especially given BRIC's importance to rural and tribal communities. Over the past four years, the program has awarded approximately $4.5 billion for nearly 2,000 projects, including flood walls, road improvements, and evacuation centers.The lawsuit comes amid scrutiny over FEMA's recent handling of deadly floods in Texas, which killed over 130 people, reinforcing concerns about cutting pre-disaster funding. The plaintiff states are seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the BRIC program while the case proceeds.Trump administration sued by US states for cutting disaster prevention grants | ReutersFEMA Sued By 20 States Over Cuts to Disaster Mitigation ProgramGeorge Retes, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen and Army veteran, says he was wrongfully detained for three days following an immigration raid at a cannabis farm in Camarillo, California. Retes, who works as a security guard at the site, described a violent arrest by federal agents during a chaotic scene involving protestors. He alleges that officers broke his car window, used tear gas on him, and restrained him forcefully, despite his repeated statements that he was a citizen and an employee.The raid was part of a broader immigration enforcement effort under the Trump administration, which began ramping up in June. Retes claims he was never told what he was being charged with and was taken to a downtown Los Angeles facility without explanation. He missed his daughter's third birthday while detained and now plans to sue the federal government.Immigrant rights groups have warned that U.S. citizens and legal residents are sometimes wrongly caught up in such raids. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Retes' arrest and release, stating that his case, among others, is under review by the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential federal charges. Retes condemned the treatment he received and called for greater accountability, saying no one—regardless of immigration status—should be subjected to such abuse.US citizen says he was jailed for three days after California immigration raid | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Residence ActOn July 16, 1790, the U.S. Congress passed the Residence Act, establishing the District of Columbia as the permanent seat of the federal government. The decision was the product of a political compromise between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, brokered in part by James Madison, whereby southern states would support federal assumption of state debts in exchange for locating the capital along the Potomac River. The land for the new district was ceded by both Maryland and Virginia, and the Constitution allowed for a federal district not exceeding ten miles square. President George Washington personally selected the site, which straddled the Potomac and included portions of Alexandria and Georgetown.Pierre Charles L'Enfant was tasked with designing the city's layout, envisioning broad avenues and grand public spaces to reflect the dignity of the new republic. In the early years, however, Washington, D.C. remained underdeveloped and muddy, with many of the federal buildings still under construction. Over time, most major institutions and monuments were built on the Maryland side of the river, causing concern among residents on the Virginia side. In 1846, responding to economic neglect and the declining significance of Alexandria as a port, Congress approved Virginia's request to retrocede its portion of the district. This land, now Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria, rejoined Virginia, reducing the size of D.C. to its current boundaries.The Residence Act and subsequent development of Washington, D.C. created a unique legal and political entity—neither a state nor part of one. This status continues to affect the rights and representation of its residents, a legal debate that remains active today.An $8 billion shareholder lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders began this week in Delaware's Chancery Court, focusing on alleged failures to uphold Facebook's 2012 privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Reed Hastings, and others knowingly allowed Facebook user data to be harvested—specifically in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that surfaced in 2018. That breach led to a record $5 billion FTC fine, which shareholders now want the defendants to personally reimburse, along with additional legal costs.The trial, presided over by Chief Judge Kathaleen McCormick, will feature testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients, who served on Meta's board from 2018 to 2020. Plaintiffs claim Zuckerberg profited by selling Facebook stock before the public learned of the data misuse, allegedly netting over $1 billion. Defendants deny all wrongdoing, maintaining they relied on compliance experts and were misled by Cambridge Analytica.This is the first oversight liability case of its kind to reach trial, a notoriously difficult claim under Delaware corporate law. Meta itself is not named as a defendant, and the company has declined to comment, though it has previously stated it has invested heavily in privacy protections since 2019.Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg | ReutersKilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant wrongly deported from the U.S. despite legal protections, is scheduled to appear in a Tennessee federal court on smuggling charges, though the future of his case remains murky. Abrego had been living legally in Maryland with a work permit and was protected by a 2019 court order barring deportation to El Salvador due to threats of gang violence. Nonetheless, he was deported in March and imprisoned there before being returned to the U.S. after federal prosecutors indicted him for allegedly participating in a human smuggling operation.He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers claim the charges are politically motivated—a cover for the Trump administration's mishandling of his case. They also challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses, who are alleged co-conspirators seeking to avoid their own deportation or charges. A magistrate judge ordered Abrego released on bail, but prosecutors are appealing, arguing he poses a flight risk and should remain detained. Even if released from criminal custody, immigration officials have said they plan to detain him immediately for possible deportation.Judge Waverly Crenshaw is expected to hear arguments and potentially rule on his bail status. Abrego's attorneys have asked to delay any release until Wednesday to prevent sudden removal before he can challenge deportation. The administration has signaled it may try to deport him to a third country—possibly Mexico or South Sudan—instead of El Salvador. His case has become emblematic of broader concerns over due process in the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Returned deportee Abrego due in Tennessee court; future of smuggling case uncertain | ReutersMilbank, a prominent New York-based law firm, is representing the cities of Newark and Hoboken in a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump's administration over their immigration policies. The federal suit, filed in May, accuses the cities of obstructing immigration enforcement by acting as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Milbank's defense team includes notable figures like former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal and ex-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, now both partners at the firm.Milbank's involvement in the case comes just months after it agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by executive orders aimed at major law firms. Trump had accused those firms of politicizing legal work and using racial diversity initiatives improperly. In response, several firms—including Milbank—committed to providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to mutually agreed-upon causes. Milbank set aside $100 million as part of its agreement, though it was not formally sanctioned.Despite that arrangement, Milbank has taken on multiple high-profile cases opposing the Trump administration. In addition to defending Newark and Hoboken, Katyal is leading two other cases challenging Trump policies, including import tariffs and alleged wrongful termination of a federal board member. The firm's role in these cases highlights its continued legal pushback against the administration, even while navigating its negotiated settlement with the White House.Law firm Milbank defends NJ cities in Trump immigration lawsuit | ReutersA piece I wrote for Inside Higher Ed this week argues that tax policy deserves a central place in the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum—not as a technical specialty but as a cornerstone of civic education. I open by reflecting on the tax legislation passed under President Trump, that is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, noting how its complexity served political ends by shielding its full implications from public understanding. That opacity, I suggest, is not accidental—and it's exactly why we need to teach tax more broadly.In my course at Drexel University, “Introduction to Tax Theory and Policy,” I approach tax not as accounting or law but as a form of civic infrastructure. The course welcomes students from all majors, encouraging them to think about taxation in terms of fairness, power, and values. We explore how tax policy shapes economic behavior, redistributes resources, and reflects assumptions about what and whom government should support. Students analyze topics ranging from estate taxes to digital surveillance and propose their own reforms grounded in ethical and civic reasoning.By demystifying the tax code and framing it as a site of public decision-making, I aim to empower students to see themselves not just as subjects of tax policy but as potential shapers of it. Their engagement—often surprisingly enthusiastic—reveals a hunger for this kind of critical, values-based education. Ultimately, I argue that tax belongs in the liberal arts because it teaches students not just how the world works, but how it's been made to work—and how it could be remade more equitably.Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: “A Friend of the Constitution”On July 15, 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall took the unusual step of anonymously defending one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in American history—McCulloch v. Maryland. Writing under the pseudonym A Friend of the Constitution, Marshall authored a series of essays published in the Philadelphia Union and the Alexandria Gazette, responding to public criticism of the Court's expansive interpretation of federal power. The decision, issued earlier that year, had upheld Congress's authority to establish a national bank and struck down Maryland's attempt to tax it, solidifying the doctrine of federal supremacy.Marshall's public defense was significant because it revealed the political sensitivity of the ruling and the extent to which the legitimacy of the Court's reasoning was contested. The McCulloch opinion laid out the principle of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, asserting that the federal government could take actions not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they furthered constitutionally enumerated powers. The decision also famously stated, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” rejecting state efforts to control or burden federal institutions.Critics, particularly from states' rights factions, argued the decision centralized too much power in the federal government and eroded state sovereignty. Marshall's essays, though unsigned, were unmistakably in his judicial voice and aimed to calm anxieties about federal overreach by appealing to reason, constitutional structure, and the logic of a functioning union. His public engagement reflected an early awareness of the need to build public confidence in the judiciary's authority.This episode was rare in that a sitting Chief Justice chose to participate in public constitutional debate beyond the bench. It also underscored the foundational role McCulloch would come to play in defining the American system of federalism. The decision has remained a touchstone in constitutional law for over two centuries, cited in debates over congressional authority ranging from the New Deal to the Affordable Care Act.Marshall's intervention on July 15, 1819, was both defensive and visionary—a recognition that legal rulings do not exist in a vacuum and often require articulation beyond the courtroom to be enduring.The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education. In a brief unsigned order, the Court lifted a lower court's injunction that had temporarily reinstated about 1,400 laid-off employees and blocked the transfer of key department functions to other agencies. The decision marks a major victory for President Trump, who has pushed to return educational control to states and fulfill a campaign promise to minimize federal involvement in schools.Three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning that the ruling effectively grants the president power to dismantle congressional mandates by eliminating staff necessary to carry them out. The Biden-appointed district judge who had issued the initial injunction found the layoffs would likely paralyze the department. Critics of the plan, including 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, and unions, argue that the move could delay federal aid, weaken civil rights enforcement, and harm disadvantaged students.Trump has stated that vital services like Pell grants and special education funding will continue, though responsibilities would shift to agencies such as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the Court's decision, calling it a win for students and families. The legal battle continues in lower courts, but the Supreme Court's decision enables Trump to move forward with an aggressive downsizing strategy that would cut the department's staff by half compared to its size at the start of his presidency.US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to gut Education Department | ReutersGermany's Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Yemeni nationals seeking to hold the German government accountable for U.S. drone strikes conducted from Ramstein Air Base. The plaintiffs, whose relatives were killed in a 2012 strike, argued that Germany shared responsibility because Ramstein served as a key communications hub for U.S. drone operations. They claimed that Germany failed its duty to protect life by allowing the base to be used in actions that allegedly violated international law.The court ruled that while Germany has a general obligation to protect human rights, especially regarding foreign policy, this duty was not activated in the case. The judges found no clear evidence that the U.S. was applying unlawful criteria in distinguishing between legitimate military targets and civilians in Yemen. They also concluded that the German government had acted within its discretion by relying on the U.S. interpretation of international law.The decision reaffirmed Berlin's broad latitude in conducting foreign and security policy, including alliance cooperation. Germany's foreign and defense ministries welcomed the ruling, stating it validated their legal position. The plaintiffs criticized the outcome as setting a dangerous precedent by shielding states that facilitate U.S. drone operations from accountability when civilians are harmed. The case reignited debate over Germany's role in supporting U.S. military actions from its territory.Germany's top court dismisses complaint against US drone missions | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Afghans living in the United States. The court issued an administrative stay through July 21 in response to a request from the advocacy group CASA, which is challenging the Department of Homeland Security's April decision to revoke TPS for Afghans and Cameroonians. CASA argues the move was arbitrary, discriminatory, and would cause irreparable harm to those affected.TPS allows individuals from countries facing conflict or disaster to stay and work legally in the U.S. for renewable periods, typically between six and eighteen months. The lawsuit is part of broader resistance to Trump's long-standing efforts to roll back TPS protections, many of which were halted by courts during his first term. Afghan advocates say ending TPS now would put lives at risk, particularly among those who supported U.S. operations in Afghanistan and women facing repression under the Taliban.The court's stay is not a final ruling but gives time for the legal challenge to proceed. The administration has until July 17 to respond. AfghanEvac, a coalition of veterans and resettlement advocates, supports the legal fight and urges the administration to restore TPS protections. Over 70,000 Afghans were admitted to the U.S. under temporary parole following the 2021 Taliban takeover, many of whom could be deported without continued legal status.US appeals court temporarily upholds protected status for Afghans | ReutersCongress has finally corrected the costly mistake it made with Section 174, restoring immediate expensing for research and development. But I don't view this as a victory—it's a reset. For three years, businesses operating at the forefront of innovation were forced to amortize R&D costs, a move that was not only economically damaging but entirely unnecessary. While lawmakers delayed fixing their own error, peer nations like China and Singapore advanced forward-looking tax regimes that actively incentivize both research and commercialization.Restoring immediate expensing brings us back to where we were before 2017, but stability in the tax code shouldn't be treated as a favor to innovators—it should be the baseline. R&D thrives on long timelines and clear signals, not temporary fixes and partisan reversals. If Congress wants to take innovation seriously, it needs to treat R&D expensing like core infrastructure and embed automatic responsiveness into the tax code. For example, if GDP growth stalls or domestic R&D spending drops below a certain threshold, the deduction should automatically increase—just as China did with 120% expensing for integrated circuits and industrial machinery.Beyond that, we need to rethink what we're rewarding. Under current rules, companies receive tax breaks for spending on research whether or not those ideas ever generate revenue, jobs, or real-world application. I'm not arguing against basic research, but I believe we should offer enhanced incentives for firms that meet defined commercialization benchmarks—like securing patents, licensing products, or manufacturing IP domestically.Repealing amortization was the right move, but the three-year delay already did serious harm to sectors both parties claim to support. Immediate expensing should now be seen as the floor—not the ceiling—of effective R&D policy. We can't afford to let innovation incentives swing with the political winds. That's why I believe Congress should require full economic scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation or CBO before any future attempt to undo R&D expensing. You can't bind future lawmakers—but you can make them confront the cost of setting another fire.Fixing the R&D Tax Code Blunder Isn't a Victory, It's a Reset This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sedition Act PassedOn this day in legal history, July 14, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act, one of the most controversial laws in the nation's early political history. Part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, this law made it a crime to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the federal government, Congress, or the President with the intent to defame or bring them into disrepute. Ostensibly aimed at quelling foreign influence and internal subversion during the quasi-war with France, the Act was also a clear weapon against domestic political opposition—particularly the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson.Federalist lawmakers, who dominated Congress and the presidency under John Adams, justified the law as necessary for national security. However, it was widely criticized as an assault on First Amendment rights and a means of silencing dissent. The law resulted in the prosecution of several Republican editors and even members of Congress, including Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont, who was sentenced to four months in jail.The Sedition Act provoked a fierce backlash and spurred Jefferson and James Madison to draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which introduced the doctrine of nullification—the idea that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. Public outrage over the Act played a significant role in the Federalists' defeat in the election of 1800 and the subsequent repeal or expiration of most provisions of the Alien and Sedition Acts.The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801, the day before Jefferson assumed the presidency. Its legacy remains a cautionary tale about the tension between national security and civil liberties, and it is frequently cited in debates over the limits of free speech in times of political crisis.California tax authorities have flagged over 1,500 high-end vehicles sold by 500 dealerships as likely being registered through Montana LLCs in an attempt to avoid California sales tax and vehicle registration fees. These vehicles—worth more than $300 million collectively—are tied to a long-running strategy used by buyers of luxury assets like exotic cars, yachts, and RVs to exploit Montana's zero percent sales tax and minimal registration costs. Dealers and buyers now face possible penalties, audits, and investigations as California intensifies enforcement.The scheme works like this: a buyer sets up a Montana LLC, purchases and registers the vehicle under that entity, and keeps the car out-of-state on paper—even if it's garaged and driven daily in a state like California. That regulatory fiction is precisely what states are cracking down on. Bloomberg Tax recently highlighted the scale of the problem, noting that more than 600,000 vehicles are likely registered in Montana but used elsewhere, costing states billions annually in uncollected taxes.Montana LLCs have become a go-to workaround for the wealthy looking to sidestep their home-state tax obligations. While technically legal under Montana law, when the vehicle is used in another state without proper registration or tax payment, it becomes a form of tax evasion. States like Illinois and Utah are following California's lead, passing laws to “look through” LLCs and hold in-state beneficial owners accountable.This isn't just a niche tax dodge—it's a broader challenge to state tax enforcement. As wealthier individuals increasingly exploit differences between state tax codes, it's prompting legal reforms and inter-agency cooperation to close loopholes once thought too obscure or dispersed to address. California's latest enforcement push suggests these Montana LLC schemes are no longer flying under the radar—and that other states may soon follow with penalties and structural reforms of their own.California Finds 1,500 Vehicles Linked to Montana Tax SheltersNearly two-thirds of the U.S. Department of Justice's Federal Programs Branch—the unit charged with defending Trump administration policies in court—has resigned or announced plans to leave since Donald Trump's reelection. Out of roughly 110 attorneys, 69 have exited, according to a list reviewed by Reuters. The exodus includes nearly half the section's supervisors and is far greater than typical turnover seen in prior administrations. While the Trump administration maintains its legal actions are within constitutional bounds, current and former DOJ lawyers cite an overwhelming workload and ethical concerns as key drivers of the departures.Many career lawyers reportedly struggled to defend policies they saw as legally dubious or procedurally flawed, including efforts to revoke birthright citizenship and claw back federal funding from universities. Several feared they'd be pressured to make misleading or unethical arguments in court. In some cases, lawyers were expected to defend executive orders with minimal input from the agencies involved. A recent whistleblower complaint even alleged retaliation against a supervisor who refused to make unsupportable claims in immigration cases.Despite the mass departures, the Trump administration continues to rely heavily on the unit as it seeks to expand executive power following favorable Supreme Court rulings. The DOJ has reassigned attorneys from other divisions, brought in over a dozen political appointees, and exempted the unit from the federal hiring freeze to keep up with litigation demands. Critics argue the changes undermine DOJ independence, while supporters claim the administration is merely ensuring its policies get a fair defense in court.Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit | ReutersAn $8 billion trial kicks off this week in Delaware where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and several current and former Facebook leaders are accused by shareholders of knowingly violating a 2012 FTC consent decree aimed at protecting user privacy. The lawsuit stems from the 2018 revelation that Cambridge Analytica accessed data from millions of Facebook users without their consent, ultimately leading to billions in fines and costs for Meta—including a $5 billion penalty from the FTC in 2019. Shareholders, including union pension funds like California's State Teachers' Retirement System, want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse the company, alleging they operated Facebook as a law-breaking enterprise.Defendants in the case include Sheryl Sandberg, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings. While Meta itself is not a defendant, the case focuses on the board's alleged failure to oversee privacy practices and enforce the 2012 agreement. The plaintiffs must prove what legal experts call the most difficult claim in corporate law: a total failure of oversight by directors. Delaware law gives leeway for poor business decisions—but not illegal ones, even if they're profitable.Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and plaintiffs argue he personally directed deceptive privacy practices and tried to offload stock ahead of the Cambridge Analytica scandal to avoid losses, allegedly netting $1 billion. Defendants deny wrongdoing, claiming the company took privacy seriously by investing in compliance and being deceived by Cambridge Analytica.Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Richard and Mildred Loving ArrestedOn this day in legal history, July 11, 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in Central Point, Virginia, for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act, which banned interracial marriage. The couple had legally wed in Washington, D.C., but upon returning to Virginia, they were charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." Richard, a white man, and Mildred, a Black and Indigenous woman, pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state for 25 years.The Lovings relocated to Washington, D.C., but their desire to return home ultimately led to a pivotal civil rights case. In 1963, they wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred them to the ACLU. Attorneys Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop took up their case, arguing that Virginia's law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After years of legal battles, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriage, declaring that "the freedom to marry… may not be infringed by the State." Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that Virginia's law served no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The decision invalidated similar laws in 15 other states.The Lovings never sought to become civil rights icons—they simply wanted to live as a married couple in their home state. Their quiet determination reshaped American constitutional law, affirming marriage as a fundamental right and setting a legal precedent that continues to influence equal protection jurisprudence.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had blocked President Donald Trump's executive order removing collective bargaining rights for large segments of the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge James Donato had issued the initial injunction in June, finding the executive order likely violated federal employees' First Amendment rights and targeted unions viewed as adversarial to Trump. The appeals court's administrative stay keeps the order in limbo while it considers the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for July 17.Trump's order affects 21 federal agencies and would make it easier to discipline or fire employees while restricting union challenges. The order notably broadened national security exceptions to collective bargaining beyond intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI. Unions argue the move is retaliatory and affects many workers who don't handle national security matters.Earlier, a Washington, D.C. judge blocked the same order at seven agencies, including the DOJ and Treasury, but that ruling is also stayed pending appeal. The Trump administration has also filed lawsuits to void existing union contracts, though one such suit by the Treasury was dismissed for lack of standing. A related case remains pending in Texas.US court pauses block on Trump eliminating union bargaining for federal workers | ReutersThe White House is currently reviewing federal agency layoff plans following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits large-scale downsizing of the government workforce. Two senior officials confirmed the review is aimed at minimizing future legal challenges by ensuring all plans comply with congressional rules and civil service regulations. Coordination is being handled through the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Personnel Management. Although no specific timeline has been announced, officials say the layoffs are an "immediate priority," with a goal to reduce the size of government swiftly.The ruling, welcomed by the Trump administration, allows agencies to act on plans developed earlier this year under the guidance of the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. However, the administration acknowledged that labor contracts and due process protections still apply, and lawsuits are expected even if legal thresholds are met.The State Department has already confirmed it will begin issuing termination notices imminently, having proposed nearly 2,000 job cuts in May. Overall, about 260,000 federal employees have already exited through firings, resignations, or early retirements since January. The layoffs are expected to affect more than a dozen departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, and Veterans Affairs.White House reviews mass federal layoff plans, aims for swift action | ReutersMahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident, has filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist, was detained for over 100 days by immigration authorities who accused him of undermining U.S.–Israel relations. His legal team submitted the claim under federal rules requiring damages claims to be filed before a lawsuit. Homeland Security dismissed the claim as "absurd," defending its actions as lawful.Khalil argues his arrest was politically motivated, targeting him for his pro-Palestinian speech, and says he would accept an official apology and a policy change as an alternative to monetary compensation. He was released on bail in June after a federal judge ruled his detention violated his First Amendment rights. The case has drawn widespread attention from civil rights and Palestinian advocacy groups, who accuse the administration of equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.Trump has publicly pledged to deport foreign students participating in anti-Israel protests, and Khalil was the first high-profile detainee under this initiative. His lawyers continue to challenge his deportation, and the administration has six months to respond to his compensation claim.Mahmoud Khalil seeks $20 million from Trump administration over immigration arrest | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.This week's closing theme is dedicated to one of America's most iconic composers—George Gershwin, who died on July 11, 1937, at just 38 years old. Though his life was short, Gershwin's musical legacy is vast, bridging the worlds of classical music and jazz with unprecedented flair. His compositions resonate with a distinctively American voice, and no piece captures that better than Rhapsody in Blue. Premiered in 1924, the work opens with a now-famous clarinet glissando and bursts into a vibrant, restless energy that seems to embody the optimism and chaos of early 20th-century New York.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman, Rhapsody in Blue was Gershwin's first major attempt to merge classical form with jazz idioms. What emerged was a concerto-like work that thrilled audiences and critics alike and marked the beginning of serious recognition for jazz as a concert-hall art form. Gershwin performed the piano solo himself at the premiere, having written much of it in a hurry and leaving some sections to be improvised on the spot.His sudden death from a brain tumor shocked the music world. It cut short the career of a composer who had already revolutionized American music and was poised to do much more. In works like Porgy and Bess and An American in Paris, Gershwin demonstrated a rare ability to synthesize European traditions with American vernacular music. But Rhapsody in Blue remains his most enduring testament—a collision of elegance, innovation, and vitality.As we reflect on Gershwin's passing this week, we close with Rhapsody in Blue, a work that continues to pulse with life nearly a century after its premiere. Its blend of bluesy lyricism and orchestral sweep makes it a fitting tribute to a composer whose voice was silenced too soon.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Second Bank of the United States VetoedOn July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, setting off a fierce political and constitutional conflict known as the “Bank War.” The Bank, originally chartered in 1816, acted as a quasi-governmental financial institution and played a central role in stabilizing the U.S. economy. Jackson, however, saw the Bank as a symbol of entrenched privilege and a threat to democratic values. In his veto message, he argued that the Bank was unconstitutional—even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld its legitimacy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—and that it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a wealthy elite.Jackson framed his opposition as a defense of the common man against corporate monopoly. His veto marked a dramatic assertion of presidential power, expanding the scope of the executive's role in legislative review. By directly challenging a long-standing institution supported by Congress and the courts, Jackson redefined the balance between branches of government. His veto was also politically strategic, rallying populist support ahead of the 1832 presidential election, which he would go on to win decisively.The fallout was immense: Jackson's administration began withdrawing federal funds from the Bank and redistributing them to selected state banks, derogatorily termed “pet banks.” This redistribution triggered economic instability and helped contribute to the Panic of 1837. Despite intense opposition from figures like Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, Jackson remained steadfast, and the Bank's federal charter ultimately expired in 1836.The legal significance of this event lies in its reimagining of the veto as a political, not merely constitutional, tool. Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution, driven by populist ideals rather than judicial precedent, established a precedent for a more active and independent executive.A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, is set to hear arguments on whether to block President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking the court to grant class-action status to a lawsuit aimed at protecting U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If class status is granted, it could enable a nationwide block on the policy through the class action mechanism—something the Supreme Court ruling left open as an exception to its injunction restrictions.Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or green card holder. The Supreme Court previously narrowed three injunctions against the order, but did not rule on its constitutionality. Opponents argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies regardless of a parent's immigration status.Judge Laplante had already ruled in February that the policy was likely unconstitutional and issued a limited injunction affecting only certain advocacy groups. The ACLU is now urging him to expand this to a broader class of affected families, citing the risk of statelessness or undocumented status for tens of thousands of children. The Justice Department, meanwhile, claims the plaintiffs are too diverse to form a single legal class and that the suit bypasses proper legal procedures.Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling | ReutersThe Trump administration escalated its standoff with Harvard University by threatening its accreditation and subpoenaing records related to international students. Federal officials claimed Harvard may have violated anti-discrimination laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, citing a Title VI investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the Education and Health Departments formally notified Harvard's accrediting body that the university might not meet its standards. However, the accreditor clarified it operates independently and typically allows schools up to four years to come into compliance.Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to issue subpoenas targeting potential "criminality and misconduct" among student visa holders at Harvard. These actions follow previous federal efforts to block Harvard from admitting international students and to freeze billions in grants, which the university is currently challenging in court. A judge had already halted Trump's proclamation barring foreign students, though the administration is appealing that ruling.Trump accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and "woke" ideology, while the university insists the administration's actions are politically motivated retaliation infringing on its First Amendment rights. Nearly 6,800 international students—about 27% of Harvard's student body—could be affected if the administration succeeds in stripping the university of its ability to host them. A separate lawsuit seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in grants is set to be heard on July 21.Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it will no longer consider a farmer's race or sex when administering many of its key programs, including those related to loans, commodities, and conservation. The decision follows directives from the Trump administration aimed at rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. According to the USDA, the shift reflects its belief that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed and that programs should now focus solely on merit and fairness.The final rule, signed by the USDA's acting General Counsel, states that race- or sex-based criteria will no longer influence program eligibility or funding decisions, though some advantages remain for beginning and military veteran farmers. For decades, the agency had designated certain groups—such as women and farmers of color—as "socially disadvantaged," often creating set-asides or prioritizations for them. This latest move effectively ends that practice.Critics argue the change undermines transparency and accessibility for farmers of color who have historically faced systemic exclusion. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger, formerly involved in USDA civil rights work, said the rule shuts off a vital avenue for ensuring equitable access to federal support. The decision comes despite the fact that only about 4.5% of U.S. farmers identify as nonwhite or multiracial, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture.US agriculture agency to end consideration of race, sex in many farm programs | ReutersThe Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the state's animal welfare laws concerning egg and poultry farming unlawfully raise egg prices nationwide and violate federal law. The complaint, brought in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California's regulations conflict with the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, which mandates national uniformity in egg safety standards. The federal government asserts that only it has the authority to regulate egg safety and that California's restrictions burden interstate commerce.California laws passed by voter initiatives in 2008 and 2018 prohibit confining hens so tightly that they cannot move freely. These measures were designed to reduce animal cruelty and prevent foodborne illness. However, the federal government argues that while California can regulate farms within its borders, it cannot impose its requirements on out-of-state producers selling eggs in California.This is not the first legal battle over the issue. In 2014, several states sued California on similar grounds and lost at both the district and appellate levels. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's 2018 animal welfare measure in a separate challenge from pig farmers in 2023, further solidifying the state's right to set agricultural standards for products sold within its borders.US government sues California over egg prices | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 14th Amendment RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified—one of the most sweeping and hotly contested legal transformations in American history. Drafted during Reconstruction, its promise was bold: birthright citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. In theory, it was the legal nail in the coffin for Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that declared Black people could never be citizens. In practice? A more complicated story.The amendment aimed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of emancipation—but its language proved a double-edged sword. While Section 1 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights litigation, it was also the platform for corporate personhood and Lochner-era judicial activism. The same equal protection clause used to dismantle segregation in Brown v. Board (1954) was first deployed to protect railroad companies from state taxes. So the question isn't whether the Fourteenth Amendment mattered—it's whether it served the people it was meant to protect.Southern states ratified the amendment under duress, often as a condition for rejoining the Union. The Supreme Court, for decades, narrowed its reach, refusing to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states and sidestepping racial injustice entirely. Only in the 20th century—through selective incorporation and the civil rights movement—did its full potential begin to manifest.Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a constitutional battleground: cited in cases on abortion, marriage equality, affirmative action, and beyond. But the fight over its meaning is far from settled. July 9 isn't just a date on the calendar—it's a reminder that even the most powerful legal language is hostage to interpretation, and that equality under the law has always been a work in progress.Retired NBA star Charles Oakley is seeking sanctions against Madison Square Garden (MSG) and Randy Mastro, a top NYC official and MSG attorney, alleging they made false statements in a long-running legal battle over Oakley's 2017 ejection from a Knicks game. In a recent court filing, Oakley accused Mastro of repeatedly lying to the court about MSG owner James Dolan's involvement, despite Dolan admitting under oath that he played a role. Oakley wants the judge to award attorney fees, censure Mastro, and require him to attend an ethics class.This move follows MSG's own motion last month asking the court to sanction Oakley and his lawyers for allegedly promoting a "false narrative" and to dismiss the case. The dueling motions are part of an eight-year legal dispute that began after Oakley was forcibly removed from MSG. Oakley, a Knicks fan favorite from 1988–1998, has claimed excessive force was used during the incident and has recently amended his lawsuit to focus on assault and battery.Ex-NBA player seeks sanctions against Madison Square Garden, lawyer Mastro | ReutersLaw school deans across Texas are pushing back against a proposal to eliminate the requirement that attorneys graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited schools. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, deans from eight of the state's ten ABA-accredited law schools argue that scrapping the rule—which has been in place since 1983—would hinder graduates' ability to practice in other states and reduce transparency for students and consumers.The court's review of the ABA requirement follows a similar move by Florida, where justices cited the ABA's paused diversity mandate and political activity as reasons for reconsideration. Critics of the proposal warn that removing ABA accreditation could isolate Texas law schools, make legal education less portable, and ultimately increase costs for students.Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Chesney, did not join the group letter. Instead, he suggested the court explore alternative or supplementary accreditation pathways. Texas A&M's law dean, Robert Ahdieh, also withheld endorsement but emphasized the importance of maintaining national recognition for Texas law degrees. The state's high court, composed entirely of Republican-elected judges, has not indicated when it will issue a decision.Eliminating ABA accreditation for Texas law schools is flawed proposal, some deans say | ReutersA U.S. district judge temporarily halted the bankruptcy sale of genetic testing company 23andMe, giving California three days to argue that the deal violates its genetic privacy law. California had earlier failed to convince a bankruptcy judge to block the $305 million sale to TTAM Research, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.The state contends that transferring genetic data to TTAM without explicit consumer consent breaches California's Genetic Information Privacy Act. With roughly 1.8 million California residents among 23andMe's 10 million users, the state argues the sale could lead to unauthorized data transfers.Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh previously ruled that consumers could delete their data post-sale, minimizing potential harm. TTAM has promised to honor 23andMe's existing privacy policies. A federal court hearing on whether to extend the pause is scheduled for Thursday. The bankruptcy follows declining demand and a major 2023 data breach at 23andMe.Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal | ReutersThe IRS has agreed—at least for now—not to penalize churches for discussing political candidates or campaigns during religious services, provided that such speech is framed as a matter of faith. This move comes as part of a proposed consent decree intended to resolve a constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law barring 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from participating in political campaigns.The settlement, filed in a Texas federal court, reinterprets the Johnson Amendment narrowly: religious speech about politics during worship services is not “political intervention” if it occurs through traditional, faith-based communication. The IRS now claims enforcing the Johnson Amendment against such speech could raise serious First Amendment concerns, especially if it treats politically silent religious organizations more favorably than outspoken ones.Critics warn this reinterpretation risks turning churches into tax-sheltered political operations. Diane Yentel of the Council of Nonprofits argues it opens the door to tax-deductible donations for de facto political activity—effectively subsidized by taxpayers who may disagree.While the lawsuit originally sought to strike down the Johnson Amendment entirely, this settlement attempts to sidestep the constitutional minefield through interpretation, not invalidation. But here's the legal paradox: the IRS is effectively rewriting statutory law without legislative input, relying on what it calls "constitutional avoidance." That raises real questions—can an executive agency unilaterally redefine the scope of a congressional statute to avoid a constitutional fight? Or is this a policy pivot masquerading as judicial restraint?For now, the constitutional showdown is paused. But if this consent decree is approved, it will mark a major shift in the legal boundaries between church, state, and campaign finance—without any actual change to the law's text. Whether that holds up under future scrutiny remains very much an open question.IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Vermont Abolishes Slavery for MenOn July 8, 1777, the Vermont Republic adopted a constitution that became the first in what would eventually become the United States to formally abolish slavery. At the time, Vermont was not yet a state—it was an independent republic formed after declaring independence from both New York and British colonial rule. The new constitution, influenced by Enlightenment principles and revolutionary ideals, declared that “no male person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be held by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice” after the age of 21.This clause effectively outlawed slavery for adult men and set the groundwork for emancipation, although enforcement was inconsistent. Vermont's action was revolutionary, especially considering that slavery remained deeply entrenched in both the southern and northern American colonies. While other Northern states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would later take steps toward abolition, Vermont's constitutional ban was a bold and early legal rebuke of human bondage.Despite its symbolic significance, the legal impact was somewhat limited. Vermont did not join the Union until 1791, and historical records indicate that some slavery-like practices may have persisted unofficially. Nevertheless, the 1777 constitution established an early legal precedent for anti-slavery sentiment, showing how legal documents could be used to challenge institutional oppression. The language also hinted at the contradictions between American ideals of liberty and the reality of enslavement.Several major U.S. medical organizations filed a lawsuit on July 7 against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the HHS, challenging recent changes to federal COVID-19 vaccine policy. The plaintiffs—including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians—are seeking to overturn Kennedy's directive removing COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC's immunization schedules for children and pregnant women. They argue that the move poses an immediate threat to public health and undermines evidence-based medical policy.The complaint accuses Kennedy of dismantling the federally established vaccine framework that has historically saved millions of lives. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, took control of HHS earlier this year and has taken steps to reshape vaccine policy. In addition to altering the immunization schedules, he also dismissed all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee and replaced them with seven individuals, some of whom have publicly opposed vaccination.Medical groups contend that these actions are not grounded in science and place vulnerable populations at significant risk of preventable diseases. HHS has not yet commented on the lawsuit.Medical groups sue HHS, Kennedy over vaccine policy | ReutersThe Biden administration had extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Hondurans and Nicaraguans in 2023, citing lingering effects of Hurricane Mitch, political instability, and economic hardship. But on July 7, the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump announced it will end those protections effective September 6, 2025, impacting roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans. TPS offers deportation relief and work permits to migrants from countries experiencing crisis, but Trump officials argue the program has been overused.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said both countries have recovered significantly, referencing tourism, real estate, and energy developments. Critics, including Democrats and migrant advocates, say ending TPS will uproot people who have legally lived and worked in the U.S. for decades and may force them to return to dangerous or unstable conditions. The Honduran deputy foreign minister acknowledged the decision wasn't country-specific, but part of a broader rollback of TPS protections.Trump's administration has already targeted TPS designations for migrants from Venezuela, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Cameroon. Legal battles continue over the policy's rollback: while the Supreme Court recently upheld ending TPS for Venezuelans, a federal judge blocked the termination for Haitians just last week.Trump to end deportation protections for thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week focuses on Maryland's new 3% digital services tax, which took effect on July 1. I argue that while the state's goal of modernizing its tax base is understandable, the execution creates more problems than it solves. Rather than taxing consumption—the standard, more efficient route—Maryland is taxing business inputs like data hosting and web services. This approach violates basic tax principles, potentially stifling investment and driving up operational costs for firms doing business in the state.The administrative burden is uniquely complex. Vendors must determine how much of each service is used in Maryland, secure pre-approval for calculation methods, and issue separate certificates per transaction. No other state requires this, which leaves businesses with a costly choice: build a Maryland-specific tax compliance system, risk penalties, or exit the market entirely. The true burden, then, is not just the 3% rate, but the compliance infrastructure that must be created from scratch.Ultimately, the tax may hurt the very businesses Maryland is counting on for economic growth. Consumers may face higher prices, companies may route around the state, and the tax may collapse under its own administrative weight. I argue that the smarter path forward lies in multistate coordination, where shared definitions and harmonized rules could make enforcement more efficient and less distortionary. Without collaboration, Maryland risks substituting short-term revenue for long-term competitiveness. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Newlands ResolutionOn July 7, 1898, President William McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution, formally annexing the Hawaiian Islands into the United States. Unlike traditional territorial expansion through treaties, this annexation occurred via a joint resolution of Congress—an unusual and legally contested mechanism. The resolution was named after Representative Francis Newlands of Nevada and passed by a narrow margin, reflecting deep divisions over imperialism, expansion, and national identity. Supporters argued that annexing Hawaii would bolster American strategic and economic interests, particularly as the U.S. was engaged in the Spanish-American War and needed a naval base in the Pacific.The legality of annexation by joint resolution, as opposed to treaty ratification requiring a two-thirds Senate majority, sparked constitutional debate. Critics contended that this method sidestepped constitutional checks and amounted to imperial overreach. Native Hawaiians had overwhelmingly opposed annexation, as demonstrated in the Kūʻē Petitions signed by over 20,000 islanders. The resolution disregarded this opposition, cementing a colonial dynamic that would echo in future U.S. territorial acquisitions.The annexation also laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1900 and its statehood in 1959, though not without continued controversy and calls for sovereignty. Legally, the Newlands Resolution exemplified the flexibility—and limits—of congressional authority in foreign affairs and territorial governance. It also introduced enduring questions about consent, self-determination, and the legitimacy of U.S. expansionism under constitutional law.This event highlights how domestic legal processes were used to justify international actions, revealing tensions between democratic ideals and imperial ambitions.A rare trial is beginning in Boston over a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of deporting international students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian activism. The case was brought by academic groups including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. It centers on actions taken after Trump signed executive orders targeting non-citizens with so-called "hateful ideology" and promising to fight antisemitism. Plaintiffs allege that these directives led the State and Homeland Security Departments to revoke visas and detain students like Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, both of whom were targeted after expressing pro-Palestinian views.Unlike most Trump-era immigration cases, this one is proceeding to a full trial rather than being decided early by a judge. U.S. District Judge William Young emphasized that a trial is the best path to uncover the truth. Plaintiffs argue the policy violates the First Amendment, accusing the administration of suppressing political dissent on college campuses. The administration denies a deportation policy exists, claiming decisions are made based on security concerns, not ideology. Homeland Security officials insist the U.S. won't tolerate advocacy that they perceive as violent or anti-American.The trial outcome could shape how immigration authorities interpret and apply free speech protections to non-citizens in academic settings. It's only the second Trump-era policy case to reach trial under Judge Young, who has publicly criticized the judiciary for avoiding fact-finding through trials.Rare trial to begin in challenge to Trump-backed deportations of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersApple has formally appealed a €500 million ($587 million) fine imposed by the European Commission for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission found that Apple restricted app developers from directing users to more affordable options outside its App Store, which regulators said limited competition and consumer choice. Apple filed its lawsuit at Europe's second-highest court on the last day allowed for appeal, arguing that the fine is excessive and that the EU is overreaching by trying to dictate how it operates its App Store.The company claims it altered its policies to comply with the DMA and to avoid further daily fines, which could amount to €50 million per day. Apple also contends that the Commission's demands are both confusing for developers and harmful to users. Despite the changes, EU regulators are still reviewing the company's new terms and have solicited feedback from app developers before deciding if additional enforcement is needed.The case is part of broader efforts by the EU to rein in the influence of major tech companies and ensure fair digital market practices under the newly implemented DMA.Apple takes fight against $587 million EU antitrust fine to court | ReutersMaryland Legal Aid (MDLA), a critical legal support system for low-income individuals, especially women and domestic violence survivors, is facing a potential funding crisis due to the Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal. The proposal includes $21 million to close out the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to 130 nonprofit legal aid programs across the country, including MDLA. This move would eliminate a key source of support for clients like a Moroccan immigrant mother in Baltimore, who received urgent legal help from MDLA while still hospitalized from domestic abuse.LSC-funded services assist people earning at or below 125% of the federal poverty line, a group that includes a significant portion of Baltimore residents, where one in five people live in poverty. MDLA, the largest legal aid provider in the state, operates 12 offices and assists hundreds of clients each week with issues like eviction defense, expungement, and protection from abuse. Despite receiving only 14% of its funding from LSC, losing this support would result in fewer clients being served at a time when demand is growing.Staff at MDLA describe their work as essential, often likening their intake offices to emergency rooms. Without legal aid, tenants and abuse victims often face court alone, without understanding their rights. Advocates say that legal aid services prevent homelessness, violence, and broader social harm. While similar efforts to cut LSC funding have failed in the past, the current budget process will determine if the latest proposal gains traction.Legal Aid That Helped Abuse Victim Threatened with Trump Cuts This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Night of the Long Knives EndsOn July 2, 1934, the Night of the Long Knives officially ended, marking one of the most chilling examples of how legal systems can be manipulated to legitimize authoritarian violence. Over the course of several days, Adolf Hitler ordered a purge within his own Nazi Party, targeting the Sturmabteilung (SA) and its leader Ernst Röhm, whom he saw as a threat to his consolidation of power. The executions, carried out primarily by the SS, claimed over 150 lives—many without trial or due process. While it was essentially a mass political assassination campaign, Hitler framed the violence as a necessary defense of the German state.What made the purge particularly sinister was how it was later codified. On July 3, 1934, the Nazi-controlled cabinet passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders, declaring them acts of state necessity. This not only provided immunity for the perpetrators but also cloaked state violence in the veneer of legality. The judiciary, already aligned with or cowed by the Nazi regime, did not challenge the legality of the purge. Instead, they accepted the new norm that the Führer's word had the force of law.The Night of the Long Knives exemplifies a central danger in legal history: when the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of one. Under Nazi rule, laws were not instruments of justice, but tools for enforcing ideological purity and eliminating dissent. This episode remains a stark warning of how legal frameworks can be bent—or entirely rewritten—to serve totalitarian ends.A federal judge in Brooklyn blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 521,000 Haitian immigrants before the program's scheduled expiration in February 2026. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to terminate the protections early, citing an August 3 end date later revised to September 2. However, Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted unlawfully by bypassing statutory procedures and lacking the authority to partially vacate Haiti's TPS designation. He emphasized that the interests of Haitian immigrants in maintaining lawful status and employment in the U.S. far outweighed any claimed governmental harm. The ruling noted that the administration remains free to end TPS, but only in accordance with congressional mandates. The plaintiffs, including Haitian TPS holders, churches, and a labor union, argued that Noem's actions were both procedurally flawed and racially motivated. Haiti's ongoing crisis—marked by extreme gang violence and instability—was a central factor in the court's decision. DHS responded by defending the decision to terminate TPS, stating it was never meant to function as de facto asylum, and pledged to appeal. The case underscores the legal limits on executive authority in immigration policy and reflects broader resistance to Trump's hardline stance, including similar efforts to rescind TPS for other nationalities.US judge blocks Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians | ReutersIn a shameful capitulation to the Trump administration, the University of Pennsylvania has agreed to disavow its past adherence to NCAA rules allowing transgender women to compete in women's sports. As part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX, Penn will publicly apologize for permitting swimmer Lia Thomas and others to compete and will retroactively erase records and titles won by transgender athletes. The university, under federal investigation since April, has also committed to reaffirming support for Trump-era executive orders that narrowly define sex in women's athletics. Penn President J. Larry Jameson attempted to deflect responsibility, noting that the school had simply followed then-valid national athletic regulations, but still conceded that some students may have been "disadvantaged." The Education Department's announcement, echoing transphobic language, framed the agreement as a victory for “protecting women” from “gender ideology extremism.” While Penn did not confirm, the deal appears tied to the reinstatement of $175 million in federal funding Trump had suspended in March. This decision, cheered by some as protecting competitive fairness, is seen by LGBTQ advocates as a rollback of rights and a politically motivated attack on a small and vulnerable population.University of Pennsylvania reaches compliance deal with Trump administration on transgender athletes | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that judges are public officials for the purposes of defamation law, meaning they must meet the higher "actual malice" standard to successfully sue for reputational harm. U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Florida dismissed a lawsuit filed by fellow federal judge Frederic Block, who had accused former members of his Florida condo association's board of defaming him by implying he was a computer hacker. The case centered on a 2020 email that warned residents about privacy and security issues after Block sent a mass message criticizing renovation delays. Block claimed the email suggested he had engaged in criminal conduct, but Altman found no evidence the board acted with actual malice or knowingly spread false information. Altman acknowledged this was likely the first court decision directly applying the "public official" defamation standard to appointed federal judges, but reasoned that the role's public influence and responsibilities justify such a designation. The ruling effectively ends Block's suit, reinforcing the principle that public officials—judges included—must tolerate broader public criticism under the First Amendment.Federal judges are public officials for defamation purposes, judge rules | ReutersNearly half a million graduate students could lose access to significant federal financial aid if President Trump's proposed tax-and-spending bill becomes law. The measure would eliminate the Grad PLUS loan program, which since 2006 has allowed grad students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance beyond other aid. The average loan through this program last year was about $32,000, and its removal would hit low-income and minority students hardest, many of whom attend minority-serving institutions. While proponents argue the move would curb tuition inflation and reduce federal spending—saving an estimated $40.6 billion by 2034—critics say it would force students to turn to private lenders, many of whom impose higher interest rates and stricter borrowing requirements. The bill passed the Senate 51–50 with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, and is now back in the House. Under the plan, current users of Grad PLUS loans would retain limited access until 2029 or until they finish their programs. The bill would also impose new aggregate limits on other federal graduate loans—$100,000 for master's students and $200,000 for professional students like those in law or medicine—raising concerns that many will be priced out of advanced degrees.Grad Students Face Loss of Major Loan Under ‘Big Beautiful Bill' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 26th AmendmentOn June 30, 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change was largely driven by the political and social pressures of the Vietnam War era, when young Americans were being drafted to fight at 18 but could not vote. The rallying cry “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” captured the public's attention and galvanized a national movement. Though proposals to lower the voting age had circulated for decades, the urgency escalated in the 1960s and early 1970s as anti-war sentiment intensified.Congress passed the amendment with overwhelming support, and it achieved ratification at an unprecedented pace—taking just over three months, the fastest in U.S. history. This amendment added a new section to the Constitution, explicitly prohibiting federal and state governments from denying the right to vote to citizens aged 18 or older based on age. The swift ratification reflected broad bipartisan consensus and mounting public pressure to align civic duties and rights.The legal shift represented a significant expansion of suffrage in the United States, enfranchising millions of young people. It was also a notable example of constitutional change in response to contemporary social conditions and activism. States were subsequently required to amend their laws and election systems to accommodate the younger electorate, which has since played a key role in shaping political outcomes.Global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the first half of 2025 grew in value, despite fewer overall deals, thanks to a surge in megadeals—particularly in Asia. Market uncertainties tied to President Trump's tariff initiatives, high interest rates, and geopolitical tension initially dampened expectations. However, confidence among bankers is rising, with many believing that the worst of the turbulence has passed. The U.S. equity markets, bolstered by record highs in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, have helped restore optimism for stronger M&A activity in the second half of the year.Preliminary data show $2.14 trillion in global deals from January through June 27, a 26% increase year-over-year, driven in part by Asia's doubling in activity to nearly $584 billion. North America saw a 17% rise in deal value to over $1 trillion. Large deals, such as Toyota's $33 billion supplier buyout and ADNOC's $18.7 billion acquisition of Santos, helped drive Asia-Pacific's share of global M&A to over 27%. Meanwhile, fewer total deals—down to 17,528 from over 20,000 last year—were offset by a 62% rise in transactions worth over $10 billion.Eased antitrust policies in the U.S. and a drop in market volatility contributed to a more favorable environment. Investment bankers are now more optimistic, citing a strong pipeline for the second half and renewed IPO activity. Institutional investors are re-engaging, further fueling expectations of continued M&A momentum.Global M&A powered by larger deals in first half, bankers show appetite for megadeals | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to curtail the use of “universal” injunctions—orders that block government policies nationwide—marking a major legal victory for President Donald Trump. This decision limits the ability of individual judges to halt federal actions across the entire country, reinforcing that relief should generally only apply to the plaintiffs involved. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, aimed to rein in what some conservatives see as judicial overreach.However, this legal win may not help Trump implement one of his most controversial policies: an executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. Three lower court judges had already blocked the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court narrowed the injunctions, it left room for opponents to pursue class-action suits or broader relief through state challenges.Legal scholars expect a wave of class-action cases and continued efforts by states and advocacy groups to block the order's implementation before the 30-day delay expires. States argue they need nationwide protection due to the administrative chaos such a policy would bring. Yet the Court declined to resolve whether states are entitled to broader injunctions, leaving that question to lower courts. If challengers fail to secure class-wide or state-level blocks, the executive order could go into effect unevenly across the country, creating legal confusion for families affected by it.Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship | ReutersSenate Majority Leader John Thune is racing to meet President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline to pass a massive tax and spending bill, navigating deep divisions within the Republican Party. The $3.3 trillion legislation, which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, is facing resistance from at least eight GOP senators. Key disagreements center around healthcare funding, renewable energy subsidies, and the bill's fiscal impact, including a proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase.Senators like Thom Tillis and Rand Paul are opposing the bill, citing concerns over Medicaid cuts and fiscal irresponsibility. Tillis, recently freed from political pressure after announcing he won't seek reelection, is expected to vote no. With a slim margin for passage, Thune can afford to lose only three Republican votes, counting on Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.Market reactions have been mixed; renewable energy stocks dropped due to proposed cuts to wind and solar tax incentives. Meanwhile, moderates are pushing to preserve Medicaid benefits and clean energy credits, warning of political fallout if millions lose health coverage. Senators like Ron Johnson are pushing for deeper Medicaid cuts to reduce the bill's overall cost.Trump has not engaged in policy details but is pressuring lawmakers to deliver the bill on time, using social media to criticize dissenters. The Senate is set for a long amendment session, with the House potentially voting on the final version by Wednesday. Whether Thune can secure the needed votes remains uncertain as the July 4 deadline approaches.Trump Tax Bill Hits Senate With GOP Torn by Competing DemandsIn the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year, Wall Street firms are rushing to capitalize on a wave of lawsuits targeting utilities like Edison International and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. These fires, among the worst in U.S. history, destroyed over 12,000 structures and have spurred litigation that could result in tens of billions of dollars in damages. With law firms often operating on contingency fees and facing steep costs, many are turning to third-party litigation financing—a lightly regulated, fast-growing industry now valued at $16 billion in the U.S.Major financial players including Jefferies and Oppenheimer are brokering deals to provide multimillion-dollar loans to lawyers handling these complex cases. These loans, often subject to non-disclosure agreements, carry interest rates above 20% and are repaid only when the law firms recover damages. In addition to funding legal efforts, some investors are purchasing subrogation claims from insurers, betting on favorable court outcomes.California's legal doctrine of inverse condemnation makes it easier for plaintiffs to hold utilities liable without proving negligence, further enticing investors. While some attorneys refuse outside funding to preserve client interests, others argue that financing is essential for firms lacking deep capital reserves. Critics, including regulators and advocacy groups, are raising concerns about the opacity of the funding industry and the potential for conflicts of interest.Wall Street Backs Los Angeles Wildfire Lawsuits, Chasing Billions This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: United States v. VirginiaOn this day in legal history, June 26, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, striking down the Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The 7–1 ruling held that the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized that gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to be constitutional.VMI had long argued that its adversative, military-style education would be compromised by the inclusion of women. In response to the lawsuit, Virginia created a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, which the Court found to be inherently unequal. The Court concluded that Virginia failed to show that its gender-based admissions policy was substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice Ginsburg's opinion stressed that generalizations about gender roles cannot justify the denial of opportunity. The ruling did not require VMI to change its core program but made clear that women must be given equal access to it. This decision marked a significant moment in the legal evolution of gender equality and helped to dismantle one of the most visible public institutions that had resisted coeducation.Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the decision imposed a rigid standard of gender equality that went beyond the Constitution's text and history. Nevertheless, the ruling reflected the Court's growing skepticism of laws that enforce traditional gender roles. United States v. Virginia remains one of the most cited gender discrimination cases and is considered a hallmark of Ginsburg's judicial legacy.A federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle Job Corps, a longstanding job training program for low-income youth. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the Department of Labor's plan to abruptly end the program without congressional approval likely violates federal law. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Job Corps Association and several of its contractors.Job Corps, established in 1964, provides educational and vocational training for disadvantaged individuals aged 16 to 24. It currently serves about 25,000 participants at 120 centers nationwide, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion. The administration argued the program was inefficient, citing low graduation rates, poor job placement, and issues with violence and security at centers.However, plaintiffs maintain that only Congress can terminate a federally funded program and that the Labor Department failed to follow statutory procedures for closing individual centers. Judge Carter agreed, stating that once Congress mandates and funds a program, the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate it.US judge extends block on Trump's bid to eliminate Job Corps program | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found the authors failed to show sufficient evidence that Meta's AI training harmed the market for their work—an essential element in proving copyright infringement under U.S. law.While Chhabria emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training could be illegal in many scenarios, he clarified that his ruling was limited to the plaintiffs' failure to present the right arguments or evidence. This position diverges from another recent ruling in which Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic's AI use of copyrighted content qualified as fair use.The authors' legal team criticized the decision, calling Meta's actions a form of “historically unprecedented pirating,” while Meta praised the outcome and defended fair use as essential for developing transformative AI technologies.This case is part of a broader legal wave in which creators are challenging companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over AI systems trained on copyrighted materials. At the heart of the dispute is whether using such content without payment or permission to create AI-generated works constitutes fair use or undermines creative incentives.Meta fends off authors' US copyright lawsuit over AI | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I note the IRS managed an objectively successful 2025 filing season—processing nearly 138 million returns, most of them electronically—but also that success masks deeper structural weaknesses. While headline numbers are strong, the IRS suspended over 13 million returns, largely due to fraud checks or errors, delaying refunds and spotlighting operational vulnerabilities. One of the most glaring issues is the average 20-month wait time for identity theft victims to resolve their cases, many of whom are low-income taxpayers urgently awaiting those refunds.Staffing levels are at crisis lows: the IRS workforce shrank by 26% in the first half of 2025, casting doubt on its ability to maintain performance as the temporary funding from the Inflation Reduction Act winds down. Looking ahead, the 2026 expiration of key provisions from the 2017 tax law will require major administrative overhauls—updates to forms, guidance, and withholding tables—that the current IRS may be too under-resourced to handle.The agency has promising plans, including digitization of paper returns and case system integration, but even the best-designed systems require trained staff to implement and maintain them. Moreover, modernization must be inclusive: 17% of Americans still lack internet access, and an effective IRS must serve them too. Ultimately, tax administration is not just a technical task—it's a distributive justice issue, and how we fund and staff it determines who bears the burden when the system falters.What The IRS' 2025 Filing Season Tells Us About The Future Of Taxes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Alien ActOn June 25, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Alien Act, one of the four laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Signed into law by President John Adams, the Alien Act authorized the president to order the deportation of any non-citizen deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." This law emerged during a time of heightened political tension and fear of foreign influence, particularly as hostilities with France escalated during the Quasi-War. The Federalist-controlled government promoted the act as a necessary measure to protect national security, but it quickly drew criticism from the rival Democratic-Republican Party.Critics argued the act violated fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, granting the executive branch unchecked power over immigration and expulsion. The law did not require a criminal conviction or even a hearing, allowing deportation based solely on presidential discretion. Although the Alien Act had a two-year sunset clause and was never directly enforced through mass deportations, its passage contributed to a growing divide between Federalists and Jeffersonians.The broader set of Alien and Sedition Acts also targeted political dissent, with the Sedition Act criminalizing speech critical of the government. These laws played a central role in the 1800 presidential election, fueling opposition that ultimately helped Thomas Jefferson defeat John Adams. In the long run, the Alien Act became emblematic of federal overreach and was widely viewed as an overreaction to perceived threats. It underscored early challenges in balancing national security with individual rights and helped lay the groundwork for later debates on immigration and executive authority.A decade after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a Christian legal group is preparing to challenge the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The move comes amid broader conservative momentum, including a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling for the ruling's repeal and a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Despite these developments, legal experts, including conservatives, see little chance the Court will take up the challenge. John Bursch, a former Obergefell litigator, noted that overturning such a major precedent typically requires both time and significant public advocacy—Roe v. Wade, for instance, remained in force for nearly 50 years before being overturned in Dobbs.Nonetheless, Liberty Counsel is moving forward with a Supreme Court appeal on behalf of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple just days after Obergefell. Davis was found liable for $100,000 in emotional distress damages, and the group will argue that her actions were protected by the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, stating that Davis acted as a public official and thus could not claim constitutional protection for her refusal. Liberty Counsel also intends to ask the Court to reconsider the core ruling in Obergefell, comparing their strategy to how Dobbs upended abortion rights.Legal observers remain skeptical. The Supreme Court already declined to hear Davis's earlier appeal, and while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the scope of Obergefell, they said Davis had not properly raised the issue in lower courts. That procedural misstep could again doom her case. Meanwhile, political efforts are mounting in conservative states, with resolutions and bills promoting "covenant marriage" that excludes same-sex couples. Still, critics such as the ACLU see these moves as largely symbolic and lacking real legal traction.Same-Sex Marriage Challenge Seen as Long Shot at Supreme CourtA new ruling in the case Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC has provided the first major legal decision on whether training generative AI models qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. District Judge William Alsup concluded that using legitimately purchased books to train AI models like Anthropic's Claude counts as transformative fair use, as long as the books are bought for training and then destroyed afterward. This decision gives AI developers a tentative legal framework, or “roadmap,” for creating compliant large language models, though the ruling is not without limits. Alsup allowed separate claims involving pirated training materials to proceed to trial, drawing a sharp line between lawful acquisition and copyright infringement.The court's ruling highlights the four traditional fair use factors, placing significant weight on the transformative nature of AI training while minimizing the importance of its commercial impact on the original market. Alsup asserted that the use was transformative enough to outweigh concerns over licensing markets, suggesting that AI training doesn't necessarily harm authors' ability to profit from their work. This view diverges from recent interpretations emphasizing market harm, such as the Supreme Court's 2022 Warhol decision. While this reasoning favors developers, it also creates tension with copyright owners, who argue the ruling downplays existing licensing practices.The decision notably distances itself from claims involving pirated materials. Alsup treated the copying and use of pirated books as a separate issue that may still result in substantial liability, including statutory damages. This split decision—approving the use of lawfully acquired materials but scrutinizing pirated content—offers a compromise approach that courts in similar cases might adopt. With multiple lawsuits against OpenAI and Meta pending, Alsup's ruling could influence upcoming decisions, though judges in other districts may interpret the law differently. The opinion suggests that training can be transformative and lawful under certain conditions but reinforces that AI companies must source training data responsibly.Mixed Anthropic Ruling Builds Roadmap for Generative AI Fair UseAnthropic wins key US ruling on AI training in authors' copyright lawsuit | ReutersKilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national previously deported under the Trump administration despite a court order barring his removal, is set to appear in a Nashville court to determine the terms of his release from jail. A U.S. magistrate judge ruled that Abrego could not be detained pending trial, citing insufficient evidence that he poses a danger. Abrego has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to smuggle migrants into the U.S., accusations his legal team argues were intended to justify his unlawful deportation. His case has drawn attention as a symbol of the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies and has sparked civil rights concerns.The court noted that even if Abrego is released from criminal custody, immigration authorities may still detain him. The judge questioned the reliability of the government's witnesses, many of whom are convicted smugglers or deportees seeking leniency. Prosecutors allege Abrego transported migrants, including minors, on over 100 trips between Texas and Maryland, often accompanied by his own children to avoid suspicion. However, the court viewed these claims skeptically due to the witnesses' motivations and criminal backgrounds.U.S. officials initially labeled his deportation an “administrative error” and resisted calls to return him, raising further due process concerns. Another judge is investigating whether the administration violated court orders related to his removal. Ultimately, the Justice Department brought Abrego back to face charges, but the judge's recent ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring his constitutional rights are respected.Returned deportee Abrego due in US court over bail conditions | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Military Selective Service ActOn June 24, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the Military Selective Service Act into law, establishing a peacetime draft system in the United States. The legislation came amid rising tensions with the Soviet Union, as the early Cold War stoked fears about the need for a ready and scalable military force. This marked the first time the United States instituted a draft during peacetime, following the expiration of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which had been enacted during World War II. The new law required all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 to register with the Selective Service System.The Act granted the president authority to induct men into military service, with deferments available for education, occupation, or family hardship, though these often resulted in significant disparities in who actually served. Implementation began swiftly, with the first draft lottery since World War II conducted in 1948. This system remained in effect throughout the Korean War and into the Vietnam era, evolving with amendments but continuing to shape the composition of the U.S. armed forces.The 1948 Act also laid the groundwork for future national service debates, setting precedents for conscientious objector status and administrative appeals. Critics of the draft pointed to inequities and civil liberties concerns, while proponents argued it was essential for national defense and preparedness. Although the draft was suspended in 1973, the Selective Service System persists today, requiring registration for all male citizens and immigrants, preserving the infrastructure in case of future need. The 1948 legislation signified a turning point in American military policy, marking a transition from a wartime to a sustained peacetime defense posture.The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to resume deporting migrants to third countries without first giving them a chance to explain potential harm they could face there. This decision lifts a lower court injunction requiring due process protections like notice and a hearing before such removals, a move that drew a forceful dissent from the Court's liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the action a “gross abuse” of power, criticizing the Court for enabling potentially dangerous deportations while legal challenges are ongoing.The underlying policy targets migrants—often with criminal records—whose home countries won't accept them back, prompting the administration to seek deportations to other nations. A class action lawsuit challenged the policy, arguing that such deportations without procedural safeguards likely violate the Constitution's due process clause. Judge Brian Murphy had previously blocked removals to places like South Sudan, citing risks including armed conflict and political instability.Despite Murphy's order, the administration continued efforts to deport individuals to countries such as South Sudan and El Salvador, allegedly in defiance of judicial rulings. The administration maintains the policy is lawful and necessary to manage migrant removals. Immigrant advocates say the Court's decision endangers vulnerable individuals and weakens judicial oversight. The ruling reflects ongoing legal tensions surrounding Trump immigration strategies, many of which have now returned to the courts since his return to office.Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to begin congressional testimony this week amid political pressure from President Trump to cut interest rates. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling makes clear that Powell, and other Fed governors, cannot be removed over policy disagreements. This means Trump is unlikely to replace Powell before his term as chair ends in May 2026, and he may only get to appoint one additional Fed board member during his current term.Some in Trump's circle have floated the idea of naming a successor now to act as a “shadow” chair, but experts warn that would confuse markets and undermine both the nominee's credibility and the Fed's stability. The Fed's governance structure—with long, staggered terms and a mix of governors and independent regional bank presidents—limits any one president's influence.Despite Trump's calls for immediate rate cuts, Fed officials remain cautious, waiting for more clarity on the economic impact of tariffs and global instability, such as rising tensions with Iran. Interest rate decisions this year have been unanimous, including from Trump-appointed governors. With only two upcoming vacancies, the makeup of the Fed is largely locked in, reinforcing the central bank's independence even in a volatile political climate.Powell is staying at the Fed, with Trump appointments possibly limited | ReutersA federal judge has blocked President Trump's attempt to bar international students from studying at Harvard University, issuing a preliminary injunction that halts the administration's latest move in its ongoing campaign against the Ivy League institution. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration's actions likely violated Harvard's First Amendment rights by retaliating against the school for resisting demands to alter its admissions and curriculum practices.Trump had issued a proclamation citing national security concerns, suspending entry of foreign nationals to study at Harvard for six months and directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider revoking current student visas. Judge Burroughs rejected these justifications, stating the government's effort appeared driven by opposition to Harvard's perceived liberal stance, and warned it posed a threat to core democratic freedoms.This ruling extends an earlier order blocking similar measures and comes as Harvard fights back through two separate lawsuits—one to protect $2.5 billion in frozen funding, and another to safeguard its ability to host international students. Nearly 6,800 foreign students attend Harvard, representing about 27% of the student body. Homeland Security had previously attempted to strip the university's certification to enroll foreign students, also without presenting substantive evidence.Accusations from the administration included claims of antisemitism and ties to China, which Harvard disputes. The court's decision allows Harvard to continue welcoming international students while litigation continues, underscoring judicial resistance to executive overreach into higher education autonomy.US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to international students | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, which proposes a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, is more about political optics than sound policy. While the bill claims to combat foreign influence and protect American businesses, it fails on both fronts. It doesn't differentiate between foreign and domestic investors and ignores how economic costs are actually distributed—those costs won't be eaten by funders but passed down to plaintiffs and, ultimately, to defendants via higher settlements. This is basic economics, not a national security fix.We've seen this before with contingent-fee arrangements, where higher costs didn't dampen litigation but merely increased settlement demands. The proposed tax would similarly inflate litigation costs without reducing the flow of capital into the system. It won't stop litigation or foreign investment—it'll just make lawsuits more expensive for everyone involved, including the very corporations the bill purports to protect.The real issue, if one believes foreign interference is a genuine threat, is disclosure—not taxation. Congress could require transparency in litigation finance arrangements instead of disguising a foreign policy concern as a tax policy. By pitching a punitive tax as a protective measure, lawmakers are undermining both tax integrity and judicial credibility. This bill won't fix the problem it pretends to solve; it just sends a message that certain markets are politically disfavored and fair game for symbolic taxation.Litigation Funding Tax Proposal Solves Nothing Besides Optics This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Taft-Hartley ActOn June 23, 1947, the Labor-Management Relations Act—better known as the Taft-Hartley Act—became law after Congress overrode President Harry S. Truman's veto. Sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred Hartley, the act was passed in response to growing concerns about union power and post-World War II labor strikes that disrupted the economy.The law amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, which had established strong protections for labor organizing. Taft-Hartley introduced a series of restrictions on union activity, including prohibitions on secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, and closed shops—arrangements where union membership is a condition of employment. It also allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which prohibit union security agreements.In a significant shift, the act required union leaders to sign affidavits affirming they were not members of the Communist Party, reflecting Cold War anxieties. It also authorized the president to intervene in strikes deemed a national emergency by imposing an 80-day cooling-off period.Though labor leaders condemned the act as a betrayal of workers' rights, and Truman called it a “slave-labor bill,” it marked a turning point in federal labor policy. The act curtailed union power and set the stage for decades of legal battles over labor practices. Its provisions remain influential in labor law to this day.Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident, has been released on bail pending trial on federal migrant smuggling charges, according to a ruling issued Sunday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville. Although granted release, Abrego may still face immigration detention. He was deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 court ruling barring his removal due to risk of gang-related persecution—an action officials later admitted was an administrative error.Abrego was brought back to the U.S. on June 6 after being indicted for allegedly coordinating a migrant smuggling operation involving over 100 border pickups and transporting drugs and firearms. He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers argue the charges are politically motivated, intended to obscure the Trump administration's due process violations in his deportation.Prosecutors rely on co-conspirators who are cooperating in exchange for leniency, which defense attorneys say undermines their credibility. In a separate case, a federal judge in Maryland is also investigating whether the Trump administration defied court orders in handling Abrego's removal. The Supreme Court previously upheld the judge's mandate to return him to the U.S.Abrego Garcia ordered released pending trial on migrant smuggling charges | ReutersA Republican-backed proposal to cap federal student loans for professional degrees is raising concerns among legal educators, who say it could disproportionately harm students attending lower-ranked law schools and those from minority or lower-income backgrounds. The bill, which passed the House and is now in the Senate, would limit annual borrowing to $50,000–$77,000 and cap total loans between $150,000 and $200,000. Currently, law students can borrow the full cost of tuition and living expenses.The proposed caps would force students who exceed the limit to seek private loans, which often come with higher interest rates and stricter credit requirements. This could make legal education less accessible to students without co-signers or strong credit histories, particularly at schools with high tuition and lower job placement rates—factors that increase lending risk.Experts warn that students at unranked or lower-ranked schools, which enroll higher percentages of minority and first-generation students, could be most affected. For example, Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, which is unranked, reported a student body that was nearly 76% students of color, yet its graduates carry high debt compared to modest starting salaries.Supporters of the cap argue that unlimited loans enable tuition inflation and poor returns on investment for taxpayers. Critics counter that the policy may reduce diversity in the legal profession and limit access to legal education for underrepresented groups.Student loan caps could hit minorities, low-ranked law schools the hardest | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at Illinois' reconsideration of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax—an idea that failed to launch in 2019 but may be gaining traction again. With Illinois already levying one of the highest gas taxes in the nation, the state faces diminishing returns from fuel taxes as electric vehicles (EVs) proliferate and traditional cars become more efficient. Since road wear isn't reduced by cleaner energy, and EVs are often heavier than gas-powered vehicles, the funding model needs to evolve.The VMT tax offers a promising alternative: rather than taxing gallons of gas, it taxes the actual use of roads—miles driven—making it more of a user fee than a traditional tax. Ideally, it would be tiered based on vehicle weight, matching tax liability with pavement damage. Proposed legislation (SB1938) allows for variable pricing based on road type and time of day, which could introduce smart congestion pricing.Concerns about surveillance have been raised, but the pilot program requires only minimal data, prohibits personal data collection, and provides GPS-free options. The program is temporary, must last at least a year, and will include a full review covering equity, logistics, data security, and fraud prevention.Illinois has pushed the gas tax system as far as it can go and still faces infrastructure shortfalls. The VMT could represent not just a new tax, but a new way forward—fairer, more adaptable, and more sustainable. If Illinois gets it right, other states might follow.Illinois Vehicle Mileage Tax—Fix The Roads And Fund The Future This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Atkins v. VirginiaOn June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, holding that the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The case centered on Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder in Virginia. During the penalty phase of his trial, defense attorneys presented evidence that Atkins had an IQ of 59 and functioned at the level of a child. Despite this, he was sentenced to death.In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed its earlier stance from Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), which had allowed such executions. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the "evolving standards of decency" in American society, noting that a growing number of states had barred the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Court recognized that such defendants are at a heightened risk of wrongful execution due to difficulties in assisting their own defense and the possibility of false confessions.The decision did not establish a national standard for determining intellectual disability, leaving that to the states, but it set a constitutional floor by barring executions in these cases outright. Atkins significantly reshaped the legal landscape of capital punishment, prompting states to revise death penalty statutes and sentencing procedures.The ruling reinforced the importance of individualized sentencing and safeguarded vulnerable populations from the most severe penalties. It also underscored the role of psychological and scientific evidence in constitutional interpretation. While not without criticism, Atkins remains a cornerstone of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and a key moment in the Court's ongoing reevaluation of capital punishment.Technology giants Apple and Meta are currently facing possible penalties under the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), but the European Commission has decided not to immediately fine them—even if they don't fully comply by the deadline next week.In April, both companies were fined—€500 million for Apple and €200 million for Meta—and given 60 days (ending 26 June) to align their practices with DMA requirements. Apple was penalized for preventing app developers from directing users to alternatives outside its platform, infringing DMA fairness rules. Meta was fined for its “pay or consent” system, which required users to either pay for an ad-free experience or agree to extensive personal data use; the Commission saw this as limiting user choice.Since November 2024, Meta has offered a new, lower-data personalized advertising model, which remains under Commission review. The current situation involves ongoing dialogue: any future fines will depend on the outcome of that review and will be imposed only after detailed assessments, rather than automatically once the deadline passed.These April fines were deliberately modest—reflecting the short duration of non-compliance and signaling the EU's priority on achieving compliance over punishment, marking a softer approach compared to previous, harsher antitrust actions. The situation also plays into broader economic tensions: EU leaders have threatened digital advertising taxes in response to recent US tariffs, while a US trade report criticized EU digital regulation as a trade barrier.Tech giants Apple and Meta to escape sanctions for failing to meet EU digital rules | EuronewsA U.S. appeals court has temporarily allowed Donald Trump to retain control over California's National Guard, despite a legal challenge from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pauses an earlier ruling by Judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump had unlawfully federalized the Guard without meeting statutory requirements or adequately coordinating with Newsom.The court stated Trump likely acted within his authority and that even if coordination with the governor was insufficient, Newsom lacked the power to override a presidential order. Still, the court left open the possibility of further challenges under laws barring federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement. Newsom plans to pursue his challenge, arguing Trump is misusing military force against civilians.The case stems from Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles earlier in June to suppress protests tied to his immigration policies—actions Newsom said infringed on state sovereignty and legal limits on military involvement in civilian matters. The Trump administration argued troops are protecting federal property, not performing law enforcement.During a hearing, the appellate judges examined whether courts can assess a president's decision to federalize troops under a law allowing such moves only during invasion, rebellion, or when civilian enforcement fails. The court found the last condition may have applied, given protest-related violence. However, it rejected the Justice Department's claim that such presidential decisions are beyond judicial review.The Insurrection Act and related federalization authority are central to this case. The Act allows a president to take control of a state's National Guard in limited situations—such as rebellion or when laws can't be enforced by normal means. This case illustrates both the expansive view of executive power and the judiciary's role in checking it, even amid claims of national emergency.US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for nowPresident Trump has once again extended the deadline for TikTok to be sold to a U.S. owner, granting a third 90-day reprieve through an executive order despite lacking a clear legal basis for the extensions. The move allows TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. while negotiations persist to transfer ownership from China-based ByteDance to an American entity. The previous extension fell through when China withdrew from talks following Trump's new tariffs.This delay has not yet faced a court challenge, even though the original ban—passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court—briefly took effect in January. Trump's personal popularity on the platform, where he has more than 15 million followers, adds a political twist to the ongoing negotiations. TikTok praised the decision and emphasized its importance to 170 million users and 7.5 million U.S. businesses.Despite concerns from national security officials and lawmakers like Senator Mark Warner, who accuse the administration of ignoring known risks, the repeated extensions suggest a softening of resolve. Analysts describe the situation as a recurring political maneuver with no clear endpoint—likening it to the endless debates over the debt ceiling.Meanwhile, TikTok continues to roll out new features and expand its services, including AI tools debuted in Cannes, signaling confidence in its long-term U.S. presence. Tech giants Apple, Google, and Oracle remain engaged with TikTok, reassured that the administration won't penalize them under current law.Public opinion has shifted, with fewer Americans now supporting a ban compared to 2023. Concerns remain over data privacy, but many citizens are unsure or opposed to banning the app outright.Trump extends TikTok ban deadline for a third time, without clear legal basisThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach. Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, composed the Goldberg Variations, BWV 988, in 1741. Originally written for harpsichord, the work consists of an aria followed by 30 variations, returning to the aria at the end in a da capo structure. It was likely commissioned by Count Hermann Karl von Keyserlingk, a Russian diplomat suffering from insomnia, who wanted music to soothe his sleepless nights—though this origin story is debated.The aria, which opens and closes the piece, is a gentle, sarabande-like melody in G major. Unlike other variation sets built on melodies, Bach bases the Goldberg Variations on the aria's bass line and harmonic structure. This allows for extraordinary variety in texture, form, and mood across the variations, while keeping a consistent foundation.The aria itself is simple and elegant, consisting of two balanced halves, each repeated. Its serene tone contrasts with the technical brilliance and contrapuntal complexity found in many of the following variations. Yet, the aria's emotional restraint and clarity set the tone for the entire cycle.Over the centuries, the Goldberg Variations have come to be seen as a pinnacle of keyboard composition. The aria, both opening and closing the work, serves as a kind of spiritual bookend—calm, contemplative, and timeless. Performers often approach it with reverence, as a moment of stillness and symmetry amid musical adventure.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Goldberg Variations, BMV 988 – the aria. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Georgia v. McCollumOn June 18, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), holding that criminal defendants cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. This decision extended the logic of Batson v. Kentucky—which barred prosecutors from racially discriminatory jury strikes—to defense attorneys, ensuring both sides are bound by the Equal Protection Clause. The case involved white defendants in Georgia who sought to remove Black jurors, prompting the state to challenge the defense's strikes as racially biased.The Court, in a 7–2 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that racial discrimination in jury selection, regardless of the source, undermines public confidence in the justice system and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It emphasized that the courtroom is not a private forum and that all participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—must adhere to constitutional principles.Importantly, the decision addressed the state action requirement, acknowledging that while defense attorneys are not state actors in the traditional sense, their participation in the jury selection process is conducted under judicial supervision and is thus attributable to the state. This broadened the scope of equal protection enforcement in criminal proceedings.The ruling was a major step toward eradicating racial bias in the judicial process, reinforcing that justice must not only be impartial but also be perceived as such. By holding defense attorneys to the same standard as prosecutors, the Court ensured that the integrity of jury selection is preserved across the board. The decision also highlighted the evolving understanding of the judiciary's role in preventing systemic discrimination, even in adversarial settings.Georgia v. McCollum remains a critical precedent in both constitutional law and criminal procedure, illustrating the Court's commitment to fairness in one of the most fundamental aspects of the legal system—trial by jury.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick expanded a prior injunction, blocking the Trump administration's passport policy that restricted transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports reflecting their gender identity. Kobick found that the State Department's revised policy—mandating passports list only “biological” sex at birth—likely violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and reflecting irrational bias.Initially, the injunction applied only to six plaintiffs, but Kobick's ruling now grants class-action status, halting enforcement of the policy nationwide. The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump after returning to office in January 2025, directing all federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and abandon the gender marker flexibility introduced under the Biden administration in 2022.The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration's effort to reimpose binary sex classifications across federal documents. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called it a critical win for transgender rights. The White House condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. The broader case remains ongoing.US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people | ReutersEducational toy company Learning Resources petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs before lower court appeals conclude. The company argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is unconstitutional and economically damaging, citing a May 29 district court ruling that found the tariffs illegal. That decision, however, is currently stayed pending appeal.Learning Resources' CEO, Rick Woldenberg, warned that delaying Supreme Court review could cost American businesses up to $150 billion due to ongoing tariff-related costs. He described the tariffs as a hidden tax and accused the government of forcing importers to act as involuntary tax collectors.Two federal courts have already ruled against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, a law historically used for targeted sanctions, not general trade policy. The administration defends the tariffs as a legal response to national emergencies like trade imbalances and drug trafficking, though critics say the justification is legally thin and economically harmful.While rare, the Supreme Court has expedited cases of national significance in the past, such as Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. A key appeals court hearing on Trump's tariff authority is scheduled for July 31.Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal judge has also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Department of Defense policy that would cap indirect cost reimbursements to universities at 15%. The move came in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 research institutions—including MIT and Johns Hopkins—as well as major academic associations. These groups argued that the cap violated existing federal regulations and congressional intent.The Department of Defense had framed the policy as a cost-saving measure, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming it could save up to $900 million annually. However, universities rely on indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure, staff, and equipment that support research across multiple projects—not just the ones directly funded.The ruling by Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, mirrors earlier judicial blocks of similar funding cuts proposed by the NIH and Department of Energy. A hearing is scheduled for July 2 to determine whether a longer-term injunction should be issued. The case highlights growing legal resistance to the administration's broader push to reduce federal spending on scientific research.US judge blocks Defense Department from slashing federal research funding | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors in a 6–3 decision that sets a national precedent and effectively greenlights similar restrictions in over 20 states. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the law neither classifies based on sex nor targets transgender status, and thus only required rational basis review—not heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Court accepted Tennessee's framing of the law as neutral and medically cautious, not discriminatory, citing European health policy shifts and purported uncertainty around gender-affirming care as justification.Critics, including the Court's liberal bloc, argued the law does in fact discriminate based on sex and gender identity by banning medical treatment only when it aims to affirm a transgender identity. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, emphasized that the law's language and application plainly hinge on a minor's “sex as assigned at birth,” drawing troubling parallels to older jurisprudence that permitted covert forms of discrimination under the guise of neutrality.The ruling marks a major rollback of legal protections for transgender youth, ignoring years of precedent that increasingly recognized transgender identity as a constitutionally protected status. By lowering the scrutiny threshold and deferring to legislative “uncertainty,” the Court provided a road map for states to restrict gender-affirming care through general, non-explicitly discriminatory language. The majority's refusal to engage with medical consensus or the real-world impact on transgender youth reveals a troubling judicial posture: one that values legislative deference over individual rights, even when the stakes include physical and psychological harm to a vulnerable group.Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Treatment for Transgender Minors This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. SchemppOn this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school's policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court's broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA's lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL's U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI's budget by over half a billion dollars.Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce ShrinksThe NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.NCAA's $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward FixesIn my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois' new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state's many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois' model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.Illinois' policy doesn't just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Glass-Steagall SignedOn June 16, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933 into law—a pivotal piece of Depression-era legislation better known by the names of its congressional architects: Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry Steagall. The law's timing was not accidental; it came just months after the catastrophic banking failures that had shuttered thousands of banks and evaporated public trust in the financial system. At its core, the act sought to restore that trust through structural reform, not just emergency patchwork.The most well-known feature of the law was the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which for the first time guaranteed Americans' bank deposits up to a set amount. This singular policy innovation helped stem the tide of bank runs and brought stability to the retail banking sector almost overnight.But the law went further. In what became known as the Glass–Steagall provisions, it imposed a formal separation between commercial banking and investment banking. The rationale was simple: banks that take deposits and issue loans should not also be speculating in stocks, bonds, or other risky assets. The aim was to curtail the kind of speculative behavior that had, in part, fueled the 1929 crash.This firewall between different banking functions endured for decades, until its gradual erosion and eventual repeal under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Critics of deregulation would later argue that dismantling Glass–Steagall helped set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis.So, why does June 16 matter? Because it marks the day Congress decided that the rule of law—not just market forces—would govern American finance. It's a reminder that even in moments of deep economic despair, institutional design and legislative action can restore public confidence. The legacy of the 1933 Banking Act lives on every time someone deposits a paycheck without worrying if their bank will still be open next week.President Donald Trump has ordered a major escalation in deportation operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), targeting the largest U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The initiative, described by Trump as the "single largest Mass Deportation Program in History," comes amid widespread protests and legal opposition. Trump framed the policy as necessary to remove "millions" of undocumented migrants but also pledged to soften its impact on sectors like agriculture and hospitality, which rely heavily on immigrant labor.ICE is now arresting roughly 2,000 undocumented individuals daily, a significant increase from the Biden administration's rates. Trump aide Stephen Miller has pushed for even higher daily arrests, aiming for 3,000. This surge coincides with a drop in the number of foreign workers, contributing to an overall labor force decline.In response to protests—particularly in Los Angeles—Trump deployed National Guard troops and up to 700 active-duty Marines to secure federal property, sparking backlash from local leaders. California Governor Gavin Newsom has sued the administration, challenging the legality of the troop deployment. A federal appeals court is currently reviewing a lower court's restriction on the National Guard's use.Trump Orders ICE to Expand Deportations in Largest US CitiesSenate Republicans are preparing to unveil their draft of President Trump's sweeping $3 trillion economic package, aiming for passage by Independence Day. But one key detail remains conspicuously unresolved: the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.The draft, expected Monday, reflects weeks of intraparty negotiation. Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo has been trying to thread the needle between budget hawks, business-friendly Republicans, and clean energy holdouts. While the bill includes permanent extensions of key Trump-era business tax cuts—like R&D deductions, interest expensing, and full depreciation—the SALT cap remains a political landmine.The House version, passed earlier this year, raised the SALT cap to $40,000 in a bid to placate Republicans from high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, and California. Senate GOP leaders, by contrast, are floating either retaining the $10,000 cap or leaving it blank for now. Majority Leader John Thune admitted there's little appetite among senators from low-tax states to raise it.The SALT cap is more than a tax policy footnote—it's a litmus test for how seriously Republicans take their own rhetoric on fiscal responsibility. Repealing or expanding the cap would disproportionately benefit wealthy households in blue states while blowing a hole in federal revenues. It's a strange hill for a so-called “populist” party to die on.House Speaker Mike Johnson is pressuring the Senate to keep the $40,000 cap, warning that anything less could tank the bill in the House. It's a delicate dance between appeasing suburban Republicans and not torching whatever remains of fiscal conservatism.Meanwhile, energy companies are watching closely to see how the bill handles the phase-out of clean energy credits. Foreign investors are lobbying against the "Section 899 revenge tax," and Medicaid work requirements face their own internal friction. States may not be ready to implement them, and pushback is mounting over penalizing low-income parents.Senate to Unveil Trump Tax Bill Draft With SALT Fight UnresolvedA federal judge in Boston is weighing whether to block President Trump's latest move to bar foreign nationals from studying at Harvard University, as part of a broader legal fight over immigration, education, and executive power.The administration's proclamation—signed earlier this month—cites national security concerns and temporarily suspends the entry of international students bound for Harvard. It also directs the State Department to consider revoking visas for those already enrolled. The measure follows Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's earlier attempt to strip Harvard's certification to host international students, which the court temporarily blocked.Harvard, which counts nearly 6,800 international students (about 27% of its student body), argues that the Trump administration is engaging in unconstitutional retaliation. The university claims it's being punished for resisting White House efforts to control its governance, curriculum, and ideological direction—an alleged violation of First Amendment protections.Trump's proclamation, and the broader freeze on $2.5 billion in Harvard funding, mark an unprecedented federal offensive against the country's oldest and wealthiest university. Harvard is now seeking a broad injunction to protect its ability to host foreign students while its lawsuits proceed.The Justice Department, for its part, is asking the court to treat Trump's proclamation separately from Noem's earlier actions, arguing it rests on different legal grounds and doesn't expel current students—at least not yet.The outcome of today's hearing could have profound implications, not just for Harvard, but for how far a sitting president can go in leveraging immigration law to reshape higher education.Harvard to urge judge to bar Trump from closing doors for international students | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil's detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil's deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | ReutersCalifornia is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state's rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military's law enforcement involvement.The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across USA group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women's sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal's financial structure.Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.They contend that Trump's actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent's justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story's later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent's reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump's use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump's broad claims under IEEPA.Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith's team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ's personnel decisions.US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | ReutersA group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk's vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany's far-right AfD party.The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump's inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Colegrove v. GreenOn June 10, 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Colegrove v. Green, upholding an Illinois congressional districting scheme that created dramatically uneven district populations. The plaintiffs argued the map diluted votes by packing more people into some districts than others, violating principles of equal representation. However, the Court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, declined to intervene. Frankfurter emphasized that districting was a “political question” and not within the judiciary's purview to resolve.This ruling effectively insulated redistricting practices from federal judicial review and left voters in malapportioned districts without a constitutional remedy. Frankfurter's view was rooted in judicial restraint, warning against courts becoming embroiled in “political thickets.” But critics argued that this deference allowed entrenched political interests to ignore population shifts and disenfranchise urban voters.The decision stood until 1962, when the Court reversed course in Baker v. Carr. There, the justices held that federal courts could indeed hear redistricting cases under the Equal Protection Clause, ushering in the “one person, one vote” era. Colegrove thus marked the high-water mark of the political question doctrine's use in avoiding electoral oversight—a stance the Court ultimately abandoned.Mexico's antitrust regulator is poised to issue a ruling by June 17 on whether Google engaged in monopolistic practices in the country's digital advertising market. If found guilty, the tech giant could face a fine amounting to 8% of its annual Mexican revenue—potentially one of the largest ever imposed by the agency. The case began in 2020 and moved into a trial phase last year, with a key hearing held on May 20. Mexican regulators claim Google built an illegal monopoly, and has obtained financial data from the Mexican tax authority as part of its investigation.Google, which hasn't disclosed Mexico-specific revenue but reported $20.4 billion for the broader “other Americas” region in 2024, could seek an injunction to delay the ruling pending judicial review. This would parallel similar antitrust issues the company faces in the U.S., where courts have ruled against its dominance in search and advertising technologies.Adding to tensions, President Claudia Sheinbaum has sued Google for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” for U.S. users—a move she claims Google had no authority to make. The long-standing antitrust case has drawn political attention, with lawmakers urging Mexican officials to act.Google in Mexico faces major potential fine as antitrust ruling nears | ReutersTexas has taken a meaningful first step toward curbing abuse in its affordable housing tax system with HB 21, but the new law leaves major gaps that developers could still exploit. Signed by Governor Greg Abbott, HB 21 aims to end long-term tax breaks for projects that offer little true affordability. However, the bill's reliance on “area median income” (AMI) to define affordability creates a loophole: in wealthy areas, rent set at 80% of AMI can be as high as typical market rates, making the term “affordable” misleading.The law requires that half of all units be reserved for “low-income” tenants, but without adjusting for local wage realities, this standard fails to address the needs of those most burdened by housing costs. Worse still, enforcement is delayed—audits may take years, and there is no mechanism to reclaim tax benefits already received by developers who fall out of compliance. This makes upfront compliance optional in practice, not mandatory.While HB 21 mandates parity in amenities between market-rate and affordable units, this provision seems symbolic without robust inspection. The lack of a tax credit clawback—something present in federal programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—further weakens accountability.The bill's structure could dissuade honest developers, who face unclear or burdensome requirements, while allowing bad actors to benefit before facing any scrutiny. Texas risks ending exploitative deals without fostering enough viable new ones, exacerbating its housing shortage.Texas Housing Law Addresses Problem but Creates Major LoopholesAs the push for government efficiency grows, the IRS is considering using artificial intelligence to identify noncompliant taxpayers based on past audit outcomes. While this might sound like a smart upgrade, history offers a sobering warning. The Netherlands tried something similar, using AI to spot fraud in childcare benefits, and it ended in a national scandal—the algorithm disproportionately targeted minority families, human reviewers failed to intervene, and the fallout brought down the government.A recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report suggests the IRS could “leverage examination results” to improve case selection algorithms. But this raises red flags. IRS audit history isn't neutral. A 2023 joint study by Stanford and the Treasury Department found that Black taxpayers were audited up to 4.7 times more than others, especially when claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. That disparity likely came from algorithmic choices aimed at efficiency, not fairness.If the IRS trains AI on this unfiltered historical data, it risks cementing and expanding past biases into future audits. AI could be a powerful tool—but only if accompanied by key safeguards. First, training data must be rigorously reviewed to eliminate bias. Second, model decisions must be transparent so we understand how and why certain cases are flagged. And third, human reviewers must be actively trained and authorized to question and override algorithmic decisions.Week in Insights: TIGTA's AI Ambitions Risk Rerun of Dutch Fiasco This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: “Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?”On June 9, 1954, one of the most pivotal moments in American legal and political history unfolded during the Army–McCarthy hearings. The hearings were part of a broader investigation into allegations that Senator Joseph McCarthy and his staff had pressured the U.S. Army for preferential treatment of a former aide. By this time, McCarthy had become infamous for his aggressive campaign against alleged communists in government, using Senate hearings as a stage for accusations often lacking in evidence. His tactics had created a culture of fear and censorship across multiple sectors of American life.The dramatic turning point came when Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy after the senator attempted to smear a young attorney from Welch's law firm. With millions watching the nationally televised hearing, Welch famously asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” The moment drew applause and signaled a critical shift in public sentiment. It crystallized growing discomfort with McCarthy's bullying methods and marked the beginning of his political downfall.The legal significance of this day lies not in a court decision but in the public rejection of demagoguery and the defense of due process and professional ethics. Welch's rebuke helped reassert norms of fairness in legislative proceedings and served as a precedent for reining in congressional overreach. Within months, McCarthy was censured by the Senate, and his influence waned. June 9, 1954, thus stands as a symbolic restoration of institutional decency amid the legal theater of Cold War America.Getty Images has launched a major copyright lawsuit against Stability AI in the UK, accusing the company of using millions of its images without permission to train its AI system, Stable Diffusion. The case, now underway in London's High Court, challenges whether such data use falls within fair use or infringes intellectual property rights. Getty insists the lawsuit is not an attack on AI itself, but a defense of copyright protections, arguing that AI can thrive alongside creators if proper licensing is respected. Stability AI denies any wrongdoing, framing the dispute as a broader debate about innovation and freedom of expression.The legal battle is unfolding amid a global wave of lawsuits over AI training data, as creative industries express concern about the unauthorized use of their work. Getty is also pursuing a parallel case in the United States. Lawyers for Stability AI argue the suit could endanger the entire generative AI industry, but Getty counters that respecting copyright is key to AI's future. The outcome of this case could reshape how copyright law is applied to AI in the UK and potentially influence government policy.One legal element of note is UK copyright's application to machine learning, particularly regarding the "scraping" of protected content. This is significant because the UK lacks a settled precedent on whether using copyrighted data to train AI systems constitutes infringement, especially in the absence of express licensing. This case could establish that precedent.Getty argues its landmark UK copyright case does not threaten AI | ReutersDamian Williams, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has left Paul Weiss just months after joining the firm to move to Jenner & Block. His departure comes as Paul Weiss faces scrutiny for striking a controversial deal with the Trump administration in March, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services in exchange for rescinding an executive order targeting the firm. Jenner & Block, in contrast, opposed the same Trump-era executive order in court and recently secured a permanent ruling against it.Williams will now co-chair Jenner's litigation and investigations practice. During his time as U.S. Attorney, he led major prosecutions including those of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and Senator Bob Menendez. In a statement, Williams praised Jenner's fearless advocacy and strategic counsel. Jenner did not mention its legal fight against Trump or Paul Weiss's agreement in its announcement.Paul Weiss has seen several other high-profile departures in recent months, including five partners who left to start a new firm and the head of its pro bono practice, who left to work on housing advocacy. The Trump-related agreement has sparked debate within the legal community, with some praising it as pragmatic and others criticizing it as compromising firm independence.Former Manhattan US attorney leaves Paul Weiss for law firm fighting Trump | ReutersA federal judge has given final approval to a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement between the NCAA, its Power Five conferences, and student-athletes, allowing for direct payments to college athletes for the first time. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the deal, which also resolves ongoing litigation over name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, was fair and served pro-competitive purposes despite concerns raised over team roster limits and compensation caps. As part of the agreement, schools can begin sharing up to 22% of their athletic revenue—around $20 million annually per Power Five school—with athletes as soon as this summer.The deal includes $2.75 billion in back payments over 10 years to Division I athletes who played from 2016 onward. Some athletes had objected, citing unfair pay practices, gender inequities, and a lack of input from future players. Wilken responded by approving revisions that exempt some athletes from roster limits and clarified that future athletes can object to the settlement before being bound by it. Less than 0.1% of nearly 390,000 class members formally objected.While this decision marks a shift toward a new financial model in college sports, litigation will continue. Former athletes not covered by this deal are still pursuing claims, and broader legal fights remain over whether athletes should be considered employees. NCAA President Charlie Baker emphasized the deal as a stabilizing step amid ongoing legal and political challenges, including state-level competition over NIL rules.NCAA Wins Final Approval of $2.8 Billion Player-Pay Deal (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: SEC EstablishedOn this day in legal history, June 6, 1934, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established as part of the sweeping reforms of the New Deal. The SEC was created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, which exposed widespread fraud, manipulation, and lack of oversight in the financial markets. Its primary mission was, and remains, to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy, a former stockbroker and businessman, as the SEC's first chairman. The choice was controversial—Kennedy had profited handsomely from some of the same speculative practices the SEC was meant to prevent—but Roosevelt believed that Kennedy's insider knowledge would make him an effective regulator.The SEC was empowered to regulate the securities industry, enforce federal securities laws, and oversee the nation's stock and options exchanges. Among its early duties were requiring public companies to file detailed financial disclosures, registering securities before public offering, and monitoring insider trading. The commission also played a key role in restoring investor confidence in U.S. capital markets during a time of deep financial mistrust.Over time, the SEC expanded its reach, responding to new financial products, trading technologies, and crises. From investigating corporate accounting scandals like Enron and WorldCom, to managing the regulatory fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, the SEC has remained a pivotal force in shaping American financial law. It continues to evolve, now addressing issues such as crypto asset regulation, ESG disclosures, and algorithmic trading.Speaking of the SEC, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed a lawsuit challenging the SEC 2020 rule changes that made it more difficult for shareholders to submit proposals at corporate annual meetings. The rules, enacted late in President Trump's term, raised the ownership thresholds and lengthened holding periods required to file shareholder proposals. They also introduced stricter resubmission requirements for proposals previously rejected by shareholders.The plaintiffs, including the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, As You Sow, and shareholder advocate James McRitchie, argued the changes disproportionately harmed proposals on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and reduced long-term shareholder value. They claimed the SEC failed to assess the benefits of such proposals before implementing the rules.Judge Walton rejected these claims, ruling that the SEC adequately justified the changes under its mandate to promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The SEC, which had defended the rules during both the Trump and Biden administrations, argued that the reforms ensured shareholder proposals had broader relevance and potential for meaningful corporate action. The 2020 vote on the rule changes split along party lines, with Republican commissioners in support. While the SEC declined to comment on the ruling, the plaintiffs expressed disappointment and affirmed their commitment to corporate engagement on environmental and social issues.SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit challenging tighter rules on shareholder proposals | ReutersOpenAI filed an appeal challenging a court order that requires it to indefinitely preserve ChatGPT output data in an ongoing copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times. OpenAI argues the order conflicts with its user privacy commitments and sets a troubling precedent. The preservation directive was issued last month after The Times requested that all relevant log data be maintained and segregated.OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly criticized the order on social media, affirming the company's stance against actions it sees as compromising user privacy. The appeal, filed on June 3, asks U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein to vacate the preservation requirement.The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of using millions of Times articles without permission to train ChatGPT. In April, Judge Stein ruled that The Times had plausibly alleged that OpenAI and Microsoft may have encouraged users to reproduce copyrighted content. The ruling rejected parts of a motion to dismiss the case and allowed several of the Times' claims to move forward, citing multiple examples of ChatGPT generating material closely resembling Times articles.OpenAI appeals data preservation order in NYT copyright case | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal includes a plan to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), an independent agency that funds civil legal aid for low-income Americans. The proposal seeks $21 million for an "orderly closeout" of the organization, which had requested $2.1 billion to meet growing demand. The LSC supports 130 nonprofit legal aid programs that assist with issues such as evictions, disaster recovery, and access to public benefits.Critics warn that the move would devastate legal aid access for millions, particularly in rural areas and the South. In Louisiana, for example, there is just one legal aid lawyer for every 11,250 eligible residents. Legal aid leaders say they already turn away half of those seeking help due to budget constraints, and the proposed funding cut would further limit their reach.Organizations like Southeast Louisiana Legal Services and Legal Aid of North Carolina would lose 40–50% of their funding, jeopardizing services for communities still recovering from recent hurricanes. Legal Services NYC, the largest legal aid provider in the country, has implemented a hiring freeze in anticipation of possible cuts.The proposal revives a long-standing conservative goal. Past Republican efforts to dismantle the LSC date back to the Reagan era, and Trump made a similar attempt in 2018. The Heritage Foundation has accused the LSC of supporting controversial causes, but legal aid advocates argue the organization is vital to community stability and fairness in the justice system.Trump Plan to Ax Legal Aid a Conservative Aim That Targets PoorIn a piece I wrote for Forbes last week, I discuss how the IRS has quietly released the underlying codebase for its Direct File program on GitHub, marking a rare moment of transparency in government software. At the center of this release is something called the “Fact Graph,” a logic engine that models tax rules as interrelated facts rather than a linear checklist. Built using XML and Scala, the Fact Graph interprets ambiguous tax data, identifies contradictions or omissions, and suggests paths forward, all in a transparent, declarative format.What sets this apart is that, unlike proprietary tax software, Direct File's logic isn't hidden—it's open, reviewable, and potentially improvable by anyone. This move not only demystifies some of the inner workings of tax enforcement but also sets a precedent: if algorithms are mediating our legal obligations, we should be able to see and understand the rules they follow.The release is particularly striking in an era of eroding public trust in institutions and increasing reliance on automated decision-making. While Direct File itself remains limited in scope and its future uncertain, the open-sourcing of its logic engine may have laid the groundwork for broader change. Other agencies—from state tax departments to those experimenting with AI-driven policy enforcement—could adopt similar transparency, allowing the public to engage with and even help refine the systems that govern them.Peeking Behind The Code—IRS Just Open-Sourced Direct FileThis week's closing theme is by Robert Schumann and comes courtesy of Christopher Zbinden. This week's closing theme is Robert Schumann's Toccata in C major, Op. 7, a dazzling showcase of Romantic-era pianism and one of the most technically demanding works in the standard repertoire. Composed in 1830 and revised in 1833, the piece earned a reputation early on as a pianist's Everest—Franz Liszt himself dubbed it “the hardest piece ever written.” Clocking in at just over five minutes when played at tempo, it's a relentless whirlwind of perpetual motion, requiring both physical stamina and interpretive precision.The toccata form, traditionally a virtuosic keyboard piece emphasizing dexterity, becomes in Schumann's hands something more cerebral. Beneath its bravura surface lies a structure built on two contrasting themes, developed with intricate counterpoint and rhythmic displacement. The left hand must execute rapid repeated notes and wide leaps with precision, while the right weaves through syncopated figures and chromatic runs, creating a dense musical texture.Schumann dedicated the piece to his friend Ludwig Schuncke, who had recently died at the age of 23. That personal connection adds an emotional layer to a work that might otherwise be heard as pure technical spectacle. Unlike many showpieces of the era, Schumann's Toccata isn't just difficult for difficulty's sake—it's an expression of obsession, energy, and youthful ambition.For a composer better known for lyrical piano miniatures, the Toccata is an early signal of the depth and range Schumann would explore in later works. As this week closes, it offers a fitting sendoff: intricate, driven, and a little manic—in the best Romantic sense of the word.Without further ado, Robert Schumann's Toccata in C major, Op. 7 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 19th Amendment Passed in SenateOn June 4, 1919, the U.S. Congress passed the 19th Amendment, marking a turning point in American constitutional and civil rights history. The amendment stated simply that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex," legally enfranchising millions of women. The road to this moment was long and contentious, spanning more than seven decades of organized activism. Early suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony laid the groundwork in the 19th century, while a new generation, including Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, employed more confrontational tactics in the 1910s.Although the House of Representatives had passed the amendment earlier in the year, the Senate had repeatedly failed to approve it. The June 4 vote in the Senate—passing by just over the required two-thirds majority—was the final congressional hurdle. The legislative victory came amid shifting national sentiment, in part due to women's contributions during World War I and growing pressure from suffrage organizations.The amendment was then sent to the states, needing ratification by three-fourths to become law. That process concluded over a year later with Tennessee's pivotal ratification on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was certified on August 26, finally making women's suffrage the law of the land. This day marks not just a legal transformation but the culmination of one of the most significant civil rights struggles in U.S. history.Disbarred attorney Tom Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for stealing $15 million in settlement funds from his clients. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton also imposed a $35,000 fine and ordered Girardi to pay over $2.3 million in restitution. The sentence followed his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud. Girardi, who turned 86 on the day of his sentencing, had sought leniency due to age, liver issues, and dementia claims, but the court found him competent and sided with prosecutors who sought a significant term.Girardi's legacy was once tied to his successful pollution suit against Pacific Gas and Electric—dramatized in the film Erin Brockovich. However, his downfall involved stealing settlement funds in various personal injury cases, including millions owed to families of victims of the 2018 Boeing 737 MAX crash. A federal judge in Chicago recently dismissed related charges, citing the active California case, though the prosecution of Girardi's son-in-law, David Lira, is still set to proceed there. Lira denies wrongdoing.At trial, Girardi blamed the fraud on Christopher Kamon, his firm's former CFO, who has already been sentenced to over ten years after pleading guilty. Girardi's attorneys continue to claim cognitive decline, but the court maintained that he was mentally fit to face justice.Lawyer Tom Girardi sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud | ReutersA federal appeals court is set to hear its first case reviewing the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Seattle as the Trump administration appeals a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The directive, signed by Trump on January 20, his first day back in office, seeks to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.Critics—including 22 Democratic attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups—argue the order violates the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland have also issued rulings blocking the order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which heard related arguments on May 15, is considering whether to limit lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions rather than deciding on the constitutionality of the policy itself.If implemented, the order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually, according to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit before the 9th Circuit was filed by several states and individual pregnant women. The three-judge panel includes two Clinton-era appointees and one Trump appointee, potentially shaping the outcome. The administration maintains that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants, a stance at odds with long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.To be clear, this case revolves around the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States,” forming the basis of birthright citizenship. The case centers on how this clause should be interpreted, making it the key constitutional question in this challenge. On the side of birthright citizenship is, frankly, the plain language of the amendment. On the side of the executive order are racists and racist people without basic reading comprehension – full stop. There is no “other side” here, and there is no real debate. Ultimately the courts may decide to pretend there is some nuance, but that changes nothing about the clear language of the amendment. Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court reviewA group of former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees has filed a class action lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk, alleging that their departments used flawed data to justify the firing of 10,000 federal workers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that HHS and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk leads, violated the 1974 Privacy Act by using inaccurate personnel records during a mass reduction in force (RIF).The plaintiffs argue that the agencies relied on data riddled with errors, including incorrect performance reviews, job descriptions, and office locations. One named plaintiff, Catherine Jackson, reportedly received an RIF notice based on false performance ratings. Another, Melissa Adams, was allegedly terminated by officials who didn't even know her work location.The lawsuit seeks at least $1,000 in damages per affected employee and a court declaration that the government's actions were unlawful. The complaint also suggests that the terminations were ideologically driven, referencing a troubling incident where an FDA employee was warned by a man invoking DOGE shortly before receiving her RIF notice.The mass firings, which began April 1, impacted key HHS agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Kennedy defended the cuts as part of a broader reorganization to address chronic disease. The plaintiffs, however, see the action as a politically motivated purge that disregarded legal safeguards.By way of brief background, the Privacy Act of 1974 mandates that federal agencies maintain accurate records when making decisions that adversely affect individuals. It is central to the lawsuit because the plaintiffs claim their terminations were based on data that was factually wrong, violating this statutory requirement.RFK Jr., Musk Accused of Using Faulty Data in Firing HHS WorkersA new conflict over federal spending power is emerging between the Trump White House and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), centered on a $5 billion electric vehicle infrastructure program. The GAO recently concluded that the Trump administration's pause of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grants—originally authorized under President Biden's 2021 infrastructure law—violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits presidents from withholding funds for policy reasons. In response, the White House issued a sharply worded memo instructing the Department of Transportation to disregard the GAO's opinion entirely.The memo, written by OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, accuses the GAO of partisan bias and undermining President Trump's “historic and lawful spending reforms.” It signals a broader strategy to challenge the authority of congressional watchdogs and reframe presidential control over budget implementation. This dispute could serve as the first legal test of Trump's intent to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act itself.The delay in EV funding is part of a broader rollback of Biden-era policy priorities, including guidance on equity and charger placement. Meanwhile, the administration has proposed over $9 billion in spending rescissions, aimed at areas like public broadcasting and foreign aid, under Trump's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Advisors have floated a tactic called “pocket rescission,” a timing strategy that critics argue violates legal requirements for obligating federal funds.This isn't the first time a president has clashed with GAO over spending powers—Trump and Biden both previously faced scrutiny for pauses in Ukraine aid and border wall funds, respectively. However, the White House's open defiance of GAO marks a significant escalation in an ongoing constitutional debate over who ultimately controls the federal purse.More specifically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch from withholding or delaying funds Congress has appropriated unless explicitly authorized. It plays a central role in this dispute, as the GAO argues Trump's delay of NEVI grants constitutes an illegal impoundment, while the administration disputes the law's constitutionality and GAO's oversight role.White House Memo on EV Grants Sets Up Fight Over Spending Power - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Timothy McVeigh ConvictedOn June 2, 1997, Timothy McVeigh was convicted by a federal jury for his role in the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history at the time—the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The attack killed 168 people, including 19 children, and injured hundreds more. McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, carried out the bombing using a truck packed with explosives parked in front of the building. The trial, held in Denver due to pretrial publicity concerns in Oklahoma, lasted over five weeks and featured powerful testimony from survivors and victims' families.The jury found McVeigh guilty on all 11 counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and eight counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of federal law enforcement personnel. His conviction marked a pivotal moment in how the U.S. viewed and responded to homegrown terrorism. Eleven days later, McVeigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection, a sentence he did not appeal.McVeigh's case underscored the rise of anti-government extremism in the 1990s and prompted a reevaluation of domestic security protocols. It also led to legislative changes, including the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which aimed to streamline federal habeas corpus appeals and enhance penalties for terrorism-related offenses. McVeigh was executed in 2001, the first federal execution in 38 years.The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed key legal victories to President Donald Trump's administration on immigration, allowing it to proceed with controversial deportation policies. The Court lifted lower court orders that had blocked the termination of humanitarian parole and temporary protected status for over 800,000 migrants, including many from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Though these rulings advanced Trump's hardline agenda, the justices also expressed concern over the fairness of how deportations are being carried out, particularly regarding due process rights.In multiple rulings, the Court emphasized that even non-citizens, including alleged gang members, are entitled to proper notice and the opportunity to contest deportation. In one case, it blocked an attempt to quickly remove migrants from a Texas detention center without giving them enough time or information to respond legally. The justices also limited the administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, a law historically used only during wartime.The Court also ordered the administration to assist in returning a wrongly deported migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the U.S.—a directive that has yet to be fulfilled. Legal experts note that while the Court has tried to rein in some of the administration's most extreme actions, it continues to show broad deference to presidential authority over immigration. This deference was evident as the justices issued high-impact rulings without written explanation, stripping legal protections from hundreds of thousands of migrants.Pending cases before the Court include challenges to Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship and to expand deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan. A lower court found the administration violated migrants' rights by attempting such deportations without adequate legal process.Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from invalidating work permits and legal status documents for approximately 5,000 Venezuelan migrants, despite the U.S. Supreme Court recently allowing broader termination of protections for hundreds of thousands under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem likely overstepped her authority by voiding these documents in February while ending TPS for Venezuelans more generally.Although the Supreme Court lifted Chen's earlier injunction halting the broader termination of TPS on May 19, it did not preclude migrants from challenging the cancellation of individual documents tied to the program. These documents were issued after President Biden extended TPS protections for Venezuelans through October 2026. Judge Chen found that nothing in the TPS statute allowed the Secretary to retroactively invalidate permits already granted.The decision safeguards the legal status of the small subset of Venezuelans who possess these documents, allowing them to remain employed and protected from deportation. Chen emphasized that the relatively low number—around 5,000—undermines arguments that their continued presence poses economic or national security risks. The ruling comes just hours after the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end a separate parole program affecting over half a million migrants from four countries.US judge blocks Trump from invalidating 5,000 Venezuelans' legal documents | ReutersGoogle announced it will appeal a recent antitrust ruling that found the company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search, even as a federal judge considers less aggressive remedies than those sought by U.S. antitrust enforcers. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta recently concluded a trial over how to address Google's dominance, with the Justice Department and a coalition of states advocating for strong structural changes—such as forcing Google to divest parts of its ad tech business and cease paying Apple and other companies to remain the default search engine.In response, Google reiterated its disagreement with the original decision, arguing that the Court erred and expressing confidence in its planned appeal. Antitrust officials have pushed for remedies that include requiring Google to share search data and end exclusive agreements they claim restrict market competition, particularly in the evolving field of AI-driven search.At the hearing, Google's attorney John Schmidtlein noted the company has already taken steps to improve competition, such as ending exclusive deals with smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers. This, Google argues, allows for more freedom to include rival search and AI applications on devices.Google says it will appeal online search antitrust decision | ReutersPBS has filed a lawsuit against Trump over an executive order that cuts federal funding to the public broadcaster, calling the move a violation of the First Amendment. The complaint, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, argues that Trump's May 1 order is an act of viewpoint discrimination because it targets PBS over the content of its programming. PBS claims the funding cut is a retaliatory response to perceived political bias in its coverage, amounting to unconstitutional government interference in free speech.The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to halt financial support for both PBS and NPR. PBS stated that while CPB provides only 16% of its overall budget, the ban would also affect local member stations that rely on federal support and contribute 61% of PBS's funding through dues. PBS and Lakeland PBS, a Minnesota-based station, are plaintiffs in the case, arguing that the executive order would destabilize public television across the country.The Trump administration defended the cuts as a necessary step to prevent public funds from supporting what it labeled partisan or ideologically driven programming. NPR has also filed a separate lawsuit to block the order. The CPB, which receives congressional funding two years in advance to minimize political interference, previously sued Trump over his attempt to remove board members.PBS sues Trump to reverse funding cuts | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Trump Guilty on All CountsOn this day in legal history, May 30, 2024, President Donald J. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in a criminal trial related to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign. The case centered on falsified business records used to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to silence her allegations of an affair in the run-up to the election. The charges—each tied to entries in the Trump Organization's internal ledger—were elevated to felonies on the basis that they were committed in furtherance of another crime, namely influencing the outcome of a federal election.The trial, held in New York State Supreme Court, marked an unprecedented legal moment in U.S. history: a former president, and presumptive candidate in the upcoming election, being found guilty of criminal conduct. Prosecutors argued that Trump orchestrated the payments to suppress damaging information and maintain his electoral chances, while his defense claimed the case was politically motivated and the records reflected routine legal expenses.The conviction did not bar Trump from running for office again, but it did raise serious constitutional, electoral, and logistical questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers. The verdict was reached by a jury of 12 New Yorkers after weeks of testimony from former aides, prosecutors, and key witnesses like Michael Cohen, Trump's onetime fixer.Trump's sentencing was scheduled for a future date, and appeals were expected. Reactions across the political spectrum were predictably polarized, with critics calling it accountability at last, while supporters denounced the trial as a miscarriage of justice. Legal scholars noted the symbolic weight of the decision in reaffirming that no one—including a former president—is above the law.The U.S. Department of Justice and several states are wrapping up a major antitrust case against Google, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. At issue is whether Google must sell its Chrome browser and stop default search engine deals with companies like Apple and wireless carriers, which the DOJ says stifles competition. These proposals follow a prior court finding that Google unlawfully monopolized online search and advertising markets.Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the case, expects to issue a ruling by August. The DOJ is also pushing for Google to share its search data, which could benefit AI companies. OpenAI has expressed interest in purchasing Chrome if a divestiture occurs and noted that access to Google's search data would improve its AI responses.Google argues that the DOJ's proposed remedies overreach and would unfairly advantage competitors. The company has already taken some steps, such as loosening default search engine deals with phone manufacturers like Samsung. However, the government wants a full ban on payments that secure Google's search dominance on devices.Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case | ReutersA federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Trump's wide-ranging tariffs after a lower trade court ruled they exceeded presidential authority. The stay, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allows the tariffs—targeting imports from most trading partners and specifically Canada, Mexico, and China—to remain in effect while the appeals process unfolds. The plaintiffs and the government must submit legal arguments by early June.The U.S. Court of International Trade previously found that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is designed for national emergencies, not trade disputes. The panel emphasized that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional power to impose tariffs. Trump and his administration remain defiant, vowing to pursue alternative legal pathways if needed. Trump criticized the ruling publicly, warning it would weaken presidential power and harm national interests.Financial markets responded cautiously, factoring in the likelihood of a drawn-out legal process. Some companies, like small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, argue the tariffs threaten their survival due to disrupted supply chains. Broader economic impacts include $34 billion in losses and stalled negotiations with key partners. Notably, separate national security-based tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars remain unaffected.Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay | ReutersTrump's latest tax-and-spending bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," includes a provision that could significantly limit federal courts' power to enforce contempt orders against the government. The measure, buried in the 1,100-page bill, would block courts from enforcing contempt if plaintiffs did not post a monetary bond when seeking an injunction—a practice rarely required in lawsuits against the government.The provision applies retroactively and would affect both lower courts and the Supreme Court. Critics say it could effectively prevent courts from holding government officials accountable for ignoring judicial orders, as most past injunctions didn't involve posted bonds. While the administration says the measure is aimed at deterring frivolous lawsuits, legal experts warn it undermines judicial authority and incentivizes noncompliance.This change comes after a Trump administration memo encouraged agencies to request bonds in litigation. Judges have previously flagged possible defiance of court orders by administration officials but have stopped short of issuing contempt rulings. In one recent case over tariffs, a judge set a bond at just $100, overruling a higher request by the government.The House narrowly passed the bill without any Democratic support. It now moves to the Senate, where some Republicans have expressed intentions to amend it. A group of House Democrats has already called for the contempt provision to be removed, arguing it would render courts ineffective in enforcing lawful orders.Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has asked a judge to dismiss the criminal fraud charge against Boeing tied to two deadly 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people, following a new agreement with the company. Under the deal, Boeing avoids a felony conviction but will pay an additional $444.5 million into a victims' compensation fund and a $243.6 million fine, bringing the total to $1.1 billion. The sum includes investments in safety, compliance, and quality enhancements.This resolution has drawn strong criticism from families of crash victims and some lawmakers, who argue that Boeing should face trial. While most families have settled civil lawsuits and received billions in compensation, several legal representatives are planning to challenge the agreement. The Justice Department defended the deal, stating it ensures accountability and public benefit while avoiding a potentially uncertain trial outcome.As part of the agreement, Boeing's board must meet with victims' families, and the company will hire a compliance consultant instead of facing court-appointed oversight. The deal halts a planned June 23 trial over Boeing's alleged deception of U.S. regulators regarding a key flight control system implicated in the crashes.US asks judge to dismiss Boeing 737 MAX criminal fraud case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us to one of the towering figures of Classical music: Joseph Haydn. Born in 1732 and known as the “Father of the Symphony” and “Father of the String Quartet,” Haydn's influence shaped the musical landscape of his time and set the foundation for generations of composers to come, including his younger contemporaries Mozart and Beethoven. Though widely celebrated for his symphonic and chamber works, Haydn also made remarkable contributions to keyboard music—works that showcase both his wit and structural innovation.Our selection is the first movement, Vivace, from his Keyboard Concerto in D major, Hob. XVIII:11, arguably his most famous and frequently performed keyboard concerto. Composed in the mid-1770s, the piece bursts with energy and clarity, reflecting Haydn's mature style. The Vivace movement is bright, spirited, and rhythmically engaging, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra that feels playful yet assured.What makes this concerto particularly special is its balance of accessibility and sophistication. The melodies are immediately appealing, but the musical craftsmanship runs deep—complex harmonic turns, sparkling ornamentation, and a joyful momentum that never wanes. In the Classical tradition, this was written for the harpsichord or fortepiano, but it's often performed on modern piano today, bringing a different resonance and brilliance to the sound.As we close the week, Haydn's Vivace offers a fitting send-off: lively, inventive, and rooted in a composer who, even two centuries later, continues to surprise and delight.Without further ado, Joseph Haydn's Vivace – Keyboard Concerto in D Major. Enjoy!  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History:  The Killing of Maximum JohnOn May 29, 1979, U.S. District Judge John H. Wood Jr. was assassinated outside his home in San Antonio, Texas. Nicknamed “Maximum John” for his reputation of handing down the harshest possible sentences in drug-related cases, Wood had become a prominent figure in the federal judiciary's war on narcotics. His assassination marked the first killing of a sitting federal judge in the 20th century, a grim milestone that shocked the legal community and raised urgent concerns about judicial security. The investigation into Wood's murder quickly became the most extensive and expensive federal inquiry of its time.Attention soon turned to Jamiel “Jimmy” Chagra, a wealthy drug trafficker facing trial before Judge Wood. Fearing a life sentence, Chagra orchestrated the murder by hiring Charles Harrelson, a known hitman and the father of actor Woody Harrelson. Harrelson was reportedly paid $250,000 for the job. Chagra's wife, Elizabeth, played a key role in facilitating communication between her husband and Harrelson, and was later convicted in connection with the plot. Authorities used wiretaps, surveillance, and confidential informants to build their case.Charles Harrelson was eventually convicted of murder and sentenced to two life terms, though he maintained his innocence for years. Jimmy Chagra was acquitted of the murder charge but later admitted his involvement in exchange for a lighter sentence in other cases. The killing of Judge Wood underscored the dangerous intersection of the judiciary and organized drug crime in the late 1970s. It prompted significant reforms in judicial security, including increased protection for judges handling high-risk cases. The case remains one of the most chilling examples of retaliation against a federal judge in American legal history.The Trump administration announced it is rescinding a 2022 Department of Labor (DOL) directive that had discouraged the inclusion of cryptocurrency options in 401(k) retirement plans. The original Biden-era guidance had urged employers to exercise "extreme care" when considering crypto investments for employee retirement accounts. It signaled a shift away from the legally required neutral stance of the DOL's Employee Benefits Security Administration. The 2022 policy had also threatened an investigative program targeting plan sponsors who offered cryptocurrency, either directly or through self-directed brokerage windows.This earlier approach significantly dampened growing interest in crypto within retirement planning, despite companies like Fidelity exploring such offerings. With the Biden guidance now repealed, the Trump administration hopes to renew momentum in this area. However, broader market enthusiasm for alternative investments in 401(k)s has lessened in recent years, making the potential impact of this policy shift uncertain.Trump Boosts Cryptocurrency in 401(k)s by Axing Biden GuidanceThe Trump administration instructed U.S. embassies and consulates to halt the scheduling of new student and exchange visitor visa appointments. This pause comes as the State Department, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, prepares to implement expanded social media vetting for foreign applicants. According to an internal cable, appointments already scheduled will still be honored, but unfilled slots should be withdrawn. The administration is conducting a review of the screening processes for F, M, and J visa applicants, which is expected to result in new vetting procedures.This decision aligns with the administration's broader immigration agenda, which includes increased deportations and visa revocations. Critics argue that these actions infringe on free speech, particularly in cases where student visa holders have expressed pro-Palestinian views. A Turkish student from Tufts University, for example, was detained for weeks after co-authoring an article critical of Israel.Meanwhile, protests erupted at Harvard University, where students and faculty opposed both the visa freeze and the administration's recent move to revoke Harvard's ability to host international students—who make up about 27% of the student body. The government has accused Harvard of resisting policy reforms and challenged its global academic role.Trump administration halts scheduling of new student visa appointments | ReutersIn a great piece by Mike Masnick over at Techdirt, the spotlight falls on an unusual and troubling scenario at the U.S. Supreme Court: five Justices recused themselves from a single case, Baker v. Coates, because of overlapping financial ties to the same book publisher, Penguin RandomHouse. Four of the recused Justices—Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson—have publishing deals with Penguin, which is a named plaintiff in the case. Alito also recused, though no reason was provided. While watchdogs like Fix the Court praised this as a rare display of ethical self-restraint, Masnick (to my mind, rightly) questions the broader implications.If recusals due to publishing ties become the norm, the Court may be unable to hear any case involving Penguin RandomHouse—a massive player in media litigation. The publisher is involved in major lawsuits, including ones against the Internet Archive and various state book bans, and could soon be in litigation involving AI training data. If too many Justices are conflicted out of hearing such cases, key legal battles may be effectively resolved by lower courts, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.Masnick argues this is a symptom of deeper flaws in Supreme Court ethics. Justices have long accepted book deals, speaking fees, and gifts, often without disclosing or recusing appropriately. Now that some are finally acknowledging conflicts, the Court risks becoming dysfunctional. His provocative solution? Expand the Court to around 100 Justices who rotate in panels, limiting the influence of any one Justice and allowing recusals without impairing the Court's ability to function. Until systemic reform occurs, we're left with a Supreme Court that either ignores ethics or freezes itself into inaction—neither of which bodes well for public trust.When Half The Supreme Court Has Book Deals With The Same Publisher, Who Decides Its Cases? | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe