Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: First Speed Limit LawOn May 21, 1901, Connecticut became the first U.S. state to pass a law regulating the speed of motor vehicles. The law set a speed limit of 12 miles per hour in cities and 15 miles per hour on country roads. That may sound almost comically slow now, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, the automobile was still a new and disruptive technology. Roads were shared by pedestrians, horses, carriages, bicycles, and early automobiles, often without clear rules about who had priority or how fast anyone could travel. Connecticut's law reflected a growing legal problem: the common law of negligence could punish dangerous driving after an accident, but legislatures increasingly saw the need to prevent danger before it happened. Speed limits were one of the earliest ways states tried to turn automobile use from a private novelty into a regulated public activity. The law also showed how technological change often forces legal systems to create new categories of public safety regulation.Before automobiles, road law had developed around animals, wagons, and local travel; cars introduced greater speed, heavier machinery, and new risks of injury. By setting numerical limits, Connecticut moved toward a more modern model of traffic law, where drivers could know in advance what conduct was illegal. This kind of rule also made enforcement easier for police and courts because the question was no longer only whether someone drove “recklessly,” but whether they exceeded a stated limit. Other states and municipalities soon followed with their own automobile rules, licensing systems, registration requirements, and broader traffic codes. The Connecticut statute is a reminder that everyday legal rules often begin as responses to unfamiliar technologies. What started as a modest speed limit helped lay the groundwork for the complex system of motor-vehicle regulation that now shapes daily life on American roads.The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has sued Minnesota to stop the state from enforcing a new law banning prediction markets. Minnesota became the first state to enact a total ban on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which let users trade contracts based on the outcome of future events, including sports and elections. Governor Tim Walz signed the law on May 18, 2026, and it is scheduled to take effect on August 1. The CFTC argues that Minnesota's law conflicts with federal authority because prediction-market contracts are derivatives regulated by the agency under federal law. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said the law would effectively turn lawful market operators and users into criminals.Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office is reviewing the lawsuit and raised concerns that prediction markets can be addictive and harmful, especially to young and low-income people. Kalshi and Polymarket both welcomed the federal challenge, arguing that state bans undermine the federal regulatory system and may push users toward offshore platforms. The dispute is part of a broader fight between state gambling regulators and prediction-market companies over whether these products are financial contracts or illegal wagering. The CFTC has also sued other states to block enforcement actions against prediction-market operators. It recently obtained an order stopping Arizona from pursuing a criminal case against Kalshi, while Nevada remains the only state with a court-enforced ban against Kalshi. Massachusetts is also considering whether to uphold an injunction that would block Kalshi from offering sports-event contracts there.US regulator sues to block Minnesota's first-in-nation ban on prediction markets | ReutersTwo police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 attack have sued to stop a nearly $1.8 billion fund created under President Donald Trump's administration. Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. They argue that the fund is an improper use of taxpayer money and could be used to compensate January 6 defendants or groups tied to political violence. The complaint describes the fund as a “slush fund” and seeks a court order blocking any payments from it. The fund was created after Trump settled a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.As part of that settlement, the Justice Department established a fund to compensate people who claim they were victims of political “weaponization.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers that the fund is not limited to January 6 defendants and could apply to people from any political party. He also said the eligibility standard is broad and tied to claims of having experienced political weaponization. Dunn has publicly described the physical and racist abuse he faced during the Capitol attack, as well as his later struggles with PTSD. Hodges was seriously assaulted during the riot in an incident captured on widely circulated video and has also testified before Congress about his experience.Police officers who guarded Capitol sue to block Trump's $1.8 billion ‘slush fund' | ReutersLee Mendelson Film Productions, the company behind A Charlie Brown Christmas, has sued GameMill Entertainment in Manhattan federal court over music used in the video game Snoopy & The Great Mystery Club. The company claims GameMill copied or closely imitated Vince Guaraldi's well-known Peanuts music without getting the proper license. According to the lawsuit, GameMill had permission to use Peanuts characters in the game but not Guaraldi's compositions.The complaint focuses on music that allegedly resembles “Linus and Lucy” and “Skating,” two songs strongly associated with the 1965 holiday special. Mendelson argues that GameMill wanted the emotional and nostalgic effect of the original Peanuts soundtrack while avoiding the cost of licensing it. The lawsuit says the game's background music is substantially similar to Guaraldi's work and could make players think they were hearing the actual songs or recordings. A Charlie Brown Christmas remains a major part of American holiday culture, and Guaraldi's soundtrack has sold millions of copies. GameMill's game, released in 2025, follows Snoopy as he solves mysteries. The production company is accusing GameMill of copyright infringement and is seeking monetary damages. Neither side had immediately commented on the complaint when the article was published.‘A Charlie Brown Christmas' maker sues over music in ‘Snoopy' video game | 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: Homestead ActOn May 20, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act into law, creating one of the most consequential land distribution systems in American history. The statute allowed eligible settlers to claim 160 acres of federal land, so long as they lived on it, improved it, and cultivated it for a required period of time. At a basic level, the law treated land ownership as something that could be earned through residence and labor rather than purchased outright. That idea made the act especially powerful for many farmers, immigrants, formerly enslaved people, and poor white settlers who otherwise had limited access to property. But the promise of “free land” was never as simple as it sounded.Much of the land made available under the Homestead Act had already been occupied, used, or governed by Native nations, and federal land policy often operated alongside removal, broken treaties, and military force. The act therefore expanded private property rights for some while deepening dispossession for others. It also reflected the federal government's growing role in shaping settlement, agriculture, and economic development across the West. By requiring claimants to improve and farm the land, Congress used property law to encourage a particular vision of citizenship: independent, landowning, agricultural, and tied to national expansion. Over time, the law transferred vast amounts of public land into private hands. By the 1930s, roughly 270 million acres had been distributed under the Homestead Act, about 10% of the land area of the United States. Its legal legacy can be seen in debates over public lands, Indigenous sovereignty, property ownership, and the federal government's power to define who gets access to opportunity.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told senators that a nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” tied to President Trump's IRS settlement is “not a slush fund,” but there are several reasons to treat that assurance cautiously. The DOJ says Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization will accept only a formal apology and no direct damages, while the fund will be available to other people who claim they were victims of government “weaponization” or “lawfare.” The problem is that DOJ has not clearly defined who qualifies, what proof is required, or what would disqualify someone from receiving money. When Sen. Chris Van Hollen asked whether people who assaulted police officers on January 6 could apply, Blanche did not rule it out and instead said anyone could apply if they believed they were a victim. Blanche also said he would not personally write the eligibility rules, though senators noted he will appoint most of the commissioners who will oversee the fund. DOJ's public announcement says the fund was created as part of Trump's settlement with the IRS after Trump agreed to drop his lawsuit over the leak of his tax documents.The comparison to the Obama-era Keepseagle settlement is shaky. Keepseagle involved a discrimination case brought by Native American farmers and was approved by a federal judge, while this fund appears to be created through a settlement involving the sitting president and the IRS, without the same kind of judicial approval described here. Democrats also objected that Obama was not personally a plaintiff in Keepseagle, while Trump is directly connected to this settlement. The most legally significant part may be the addendum saying the IRS is permanently barred from examining certain Trump-related tax matters, including returns filed before the settlement's effective date. That makes the deal look larger than a privacy settlement over leaked tax documents, because it may also limit future tax enforcement. Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there are “a lot of questions” the administration will have to answer, which is a notable sign that concern is not limited to Democrats.$1.8B IRS Deal Fund ‘Not Slush Fund,' Blanche Tells Senators - Law360Workers at another Wells Fargo branch have moved to drop their union, showing that a once-fast-moving labor campaign inside the bank has lost momentum. The Communication Workers of America gave up representing nine employees at a Wilmington, Delaware, branch after one worker sought a vote to decertify the union. That branch had voted unanimously to unionize in early 2024 and was part of a broader organizing push that brought hundreds of Wells Fargo workers at 28 locations into the union. The campaign was notable because union representation is extremely rare in U.S. banking, where less than 1% of workers are unionized. Organizers had focused on complaints about understaffing, flat wages, sales pressure, and the lingering effects of Wells Fargo's fake-accounts scandal.The recent Delaware development is the fifth Wells Fargo branch where workers have ousted the union, with other decertifications in Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and another petition pending in Wyoming. Wells Fargo said it supports employees' right to choose whether they want union representation. The anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which has helped workers challenge union representation, framed the decertifications as evidence that employees are rejecting CWA involvement. The CWA, for its part, has blamed Wells Fargo for slowing contract talks and has accused the bank of retaliating against union supporters and cutting benefits at unionized branches. Wells Fargo denies wrongdoing and says delays are tied partly to the difficulty of negotiating some of the first union contracts in retail banking. The broader context is also unfavorable for unions, with fewer union elections held in 2025 than in 2024 and labor advocates arguing that changes at the National Labor Relations Board under President Trump have made organizing harder.Wells Fargo workers nix another union as tide turns in novel labor campaign | ReutersAnthropic is challenging the Defense Department's decision to label it a supply chain risk and bar it from government contracting, arguing that the move was an extreme response to a contract dispute over how its Claude AI models could be used. The dispute began during negotiations over the department's GenAI.mil platform, where the government wanted contract terms allowing all lawful uses of Claude, while Anthropic sought exceptions for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons systems. Anthropic argued that the department's main theory was wrong because once Claude was deployed on the department's classified network, it would be air-gapped and Anthropic could not secretly interfere with it during a military operation. The company also said the government had less drastic options, such as declining to buy future Claude models, instead of using a blacklisting authority that had apparently never been used this way before. One D.C. Circuit judge seemed strongly skeptical of the government's action, calling the supply-chain-risk designation a major overreach. Other judges were less certain, asking whether the opaque and unpredictable nature of AI models could justify the government's concern that hidden limits might affect military uses.The government argued that Anthropic's own proposed red lines created a real operational risk, especially if the company expected officials to seek real-time exceptions during military activity. But the judges also pressed the government on why it needed such broad freedom to use AI, including for fully autonomous weapons, given known concerns about AI reliability. They also questioned why the department went straight to a supply-chain-risk designation instead of simply ending or narrowing the relationship. Anthropic said the government skipped required procedural steps, including a joint recommendation and a 30-day response period, before issuing the designation. The government claimed it had to act quickly because Claude was already being used on several Defense Department platforms. Anthropic countered that this urgency argument was weakened by the department's decision to phase out Claude over six months rather than immediately remove it.Anthropic Says Defense Dept. Smeared It Over AI Red Lines - Law360A Massachusetts judge refused to let Morgan & Morgan lawyer T. Michael Morgan appear in civil litigation against Harvard Medical School over the theft and sale of body parts from donated cadavers. The judge said Morgan's earlier sanction in a Wyoming case, where court filings included fake AI-generated case citations, showed a failure to meet basic ethical duties. Morgan had disclosed the prior sanction when asking to appear as an out-of-state lawyer in the Harvard case, but the judge said he did not explain enough about how he had changed his practices to prevent the same problem from happening again. The judge also criticized Morgan for procedural problems with the Massachusetts application, including not having local counsel submit it and paying the wrong fee.Morgan & Morgan said Morgan had accepted responsibility for the earlier mistake and that the firm had added safeguards around AI use. The underlying Harvard litigation involves families who say Harvard mishandled donated bodies after its former morgue manager, Cedric Lodge, stole and sold body parts; Harvard has condemned Lodge's actions but denies civil liability. Lodge was sentenced to eight years in prison in December. The ruling adds to a growing line of cases where lawyers have been sanctioned or warned for relying on AI tools without verifying the accuracy of legal citations.Lawyer barred from Harvard morgue scandal case over fake AI citations | 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: 27th AmendmentOn May 19, 1992, the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially published in the Federal Register, ending one of the longest and oddest ratification stories in American legal history. The amendment provides that any law changing the compensation of members of Congress cannot take effect until after an election for the House of Representatives has taken place. Put more simply, Congress may vote to change its own pay, but it cannot make that change immediate. The rule gives voters a chance to respond before the pay change takes effect.What makes the 27th Amendment unusual is not only what it says, but how long it took to become law. It was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 as part of the same set of amendments that produced the Bill of Rights. Most of those amendments were ratified quickly, but this one lingered for more than two centuries. Because Congress had not set a ratification deadline, the amendment remained legally available for state approval. In the 1980s, a renewed ratification campaign helped bring it back to public attention. Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it in May 1992, giving it the three-fourths approval required by Article V of the Constitution.The amendment's publication in the Federal Register on May 19 marked the formal public recognition that it had become part of the Constitution. Its ratification raised a serious legal question about whether an amendment proposed in the 18th century could still be valid in the 20th century. The answer, at least for amendments without a deadline, was yes. The 27th Amendment stands as a reminder that constitutional change can move slowly, sometimes across generations, and still become binding law.The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether Title IX's protections against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs extend to employees, including college professors and coaches. The case was brought by former Augusta University professor Thomas Crowther and former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, both of whom lost their jobs after workplace-conduct investigations. Crowther claimed Augusta University retaliated against him and discriminated against him based on sex after it suspended him and declined to renew his contract. Joseph argued that Georgia Tech fired her in retaliation for her complaints about unequal treatment of women's athletics and female athletes. Their cases reached the Eleventh Circuit together, where the court ruled that Title IX clearly protects students, but that its application to employees is less certain. That ruling placed the Eleventh Circuit on one side of a broader circuit split.The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have taken a narrower view of Title IX employment claims, while the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have allowed employees to bring certain Title IX claims. The solicitor general agreed with the Eleventh Circuit's narrower reading but urged the Supreme Court to take the case because lower courts are divided. The case gives the justices a chance to decide whether professors, coaches, and other school employees can use Title IX directly to sue for workplace sex discrimination or retaliation.High Court To Examine Title IX Protections For Coaches, Profs - Law360A New York state judge partially granted Luigi Mangione's request to keep certain evidence out of his upcoming murder trial. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024 and has pleaded not guilty. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that police unlawfully searched Mangione's backpack during his arrest in Pennsylvania without a warrant. Because of that, some items found during the first search, including a loaded handgun magazine, a cellphone, and a computer chip, will be suppressed. But the judge allowed other evidence from a later police-station search of the backpack, including a gun, silencer, USB drive, and red notebook.Carro also rejected Mangione's effort to suppress his initial statements to police, finding that they were not obtained through an illegal interrogation. The ruling gives the defense a partial win, but prosecutors say they still have substantial evidence tying Mangione to the shooting, including DNA, fingerprints, video footage, and other items. Mangione's state trial is scheduled to begin on September 8 and is expected to last about six weeks. He also faces separate federal charges, though earlier rulings in that case removed the possibility of the death penalty.Judge grants accused CEO killer Mangione's bid to suppress evidence due to unlawful search | ReutersState lawmakers have rejected dozens of anti-vaccine bills backed by Make America Healthy Again supporters, showing limits to the movement's influence in state legislatures. The bills sought to roll back or end policies such as school vaccination requirements, but public health groups and medical associations mounted successful opposition campaigns. Groups including American Families for Vaccines and the American Academy of Pediatrics argued that vaccine mandates remain broadly supported and are important for public health. Their strategy focused especially on Republican-controlled states, where advocates used polling and personal appeals to persuade lawmakers that opposing vaccines could be both medically risky and politically unpopular. Anti-vaccine proposals increased this year because MAHA-aligned groups coordinated efforts across multiple states. Still, bills failed in places including Idaho, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, Florida, and Iowa. The debate is unfolding as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has taken steps against mandatory immunization policies, though some changes have been paused in litigation. Both sides expect the issue to continue, with anti-vaccine advocates encouraged by hearings and organizing momentum, while public health advocates say more legislation is likely to appear in future sessions.US states reject anti-vaccine bills as public health groups fight MAHA | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that a federal gas tax holiday would be a poor answer to rising gas prices because it would do little for household affordability while further weakening transportation funding. Gas prices are being driven by forces Congress cannot easily fix by statute, including conflict involving Iran and instability around the Strait of Hormuz.Lawmakers are nevertheless showing bipartisan interest in suspending the federal gas tax, including President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. The political appeal is clear because gas prices are highly visible and give lawmakers a simple way to say they are responding to voters' economic pain. But the federal gas tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, even as infrastructure costs have continued to rise. Suspending it would take revenue away from the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.The column argues that Congress should separate the problem of household hardship from the problem of transportation finance. Instead of cutting the gas tax, lawmakers could provide targeted help through refundable credits, direct payments, commuter assistance, or flexible transportation support for low- and moderate-income households.If Congress insists on a gas tax holiday, it should at least pair it with an immediate dedicated backfill and longer-term reforms such as indexing the gas tax to inflation, adopting mileage-based fees, or modernizing road-use charges. The larger point is that high gas prices are real, but a gas tax holiday is a badly targeted discount financed by a transportation system that is already financially strained. 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: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics 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: Abe Fortas Resigns SCOTUSOn May 15, 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first justice to leave the Court under the threat of impeachment. Fortas had been appointed to the Court in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a close friend and political ally. His reputation had already been damaged in 1968, when Johnson tried to elevate him to Chief Justice and the nomination failed after senators criticized his outside income and ties to the president. The controversy deepened when it became public that Fortas had accepted a financial arrangement from the family foundation of Louis Wolfson, a financier who was later convicted of securities violations. Although Fortas returned the money, the arrangement created the appearance that a sitting Supreme Court justice might be financially entangled with someone who had legal troubles. That appearance alone was enough to cause a major crisis for the Court's legitimacy.Members of Congress began discussing impeachment, and Fortas ultimately resigned before a formal impeachment process could remove him. His departure became an important example of how judicial ethics are not limited to actual corruption, but also include conduct that undermines public confidence in judicial independence. The episode also showed the tension between life tenure and accountability for federal judges. Article III judges are protected from political pressure through lifetime appointments, but they can still face removal through impeachment for serious misconduct.Fortas's resignation left a lasting mark on debates over Supreme Court ethics, outside income, recusals, and financial disclosure. More than fifty years later, the Fortas controversy is still cited when questions arise about whether Supreme Court justices should follow clearer and more enforceable ethics rules.Closing arguments ended Thursday in Elon Musk's federal trial against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft, with the case now headed to a nine-member jury. Musk's lawyer argued that OpenAI violated its charitable mission by shifting assets, employees, and value from its nonprofit structure into a for-profit enterprise now worth hundreds of billions of dollars. He focused heavily on Altman's credibility, telling jurors that OpenAI's defense depends on believing Altman and pointing to testimony and documents that Musk says show dishonesty, conflicts, and self-enrichment. Musk's side also attacked Brockman's large equity stake and cited old journal entries as evidence that OpenAI insiders were thinking about personal wealth while controlling a nonprofit mission. Microsoft was portrayed by Musk's team as helping the alleged breach by investing billions and gaining major access to OpenAI's intellectual property and business structure. OpenAI's lawyers responded that Musk's claims are late, unsupported, and driven by his status as a competitor rather than by concern for charitable law. They argued Musk's donations were not legally restricted gifts, that he once sought control of OpenAI himself, and that he did not object to earlier restructuring documents. OpenAI also emphasized that the nonprofit remains in control and now holds a stake worth roughly $200 billion, which its lawyers described as enormous value created for the charity, not stolen from it. Microsoft's lawyer argued the company did not know of any specific conditions on Musk's donations and was not involved in the core events Musk complains about. In rebuttal, Musk's lawyer said OpenAI and Microsoft were distracting the jury from documents and texts showing that Musk funded OpenAI based on a specific nonprofit safety mission. The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations Monday.‘Who's Telling The Truth?' Musk-OpenAI Fight Goes To Jury - Law360 UKMusk accused of ‘selective amnesia,' Altman of lying as OpenAI trial nears end | ReutersThe Senate Banking Committee advanced the Clarity Act, a major crypto regulation bill that would set clearer rules for digital assets and define which regulators oversee different parts of the industry. The Republican-led committee approved the bill with support from all Republicans and two Democrats, Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, giving the measure a better chance of reaching the full Senate. Even so, both Democrats warned they may not support the final version unless negotiations change. The bill is important to the crypto industry because it would help determine when tokens are treated as securities, commodities, or something else, which companies say is necessary for growth and legal certainty. Several Democrats objected that the proposal does not go far enough on anti-money laundering protections and should do more to stop public officials from profiting from crypto ventures. Banks are also fighting part of the bill because they fear crypto companies could use stablecoin rewards to compete with traditional deposits. The dispute led to tense committee negotiations, including a late compromise that Chairman Tim Scott allowed while rejecting some other Democratic amendments. Crypto groups have pushed hard for the legislation after spending heavily to support pro-crypto candidates in 2024. The White House is also backing crypto reform, and the House already passed its version of the Clarity Act last year. Supporters see the committee vote as a milestone after years of work, while critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, warn the bill favors the crypto industry at the expense of consumers, investors, national security, and the financial system. The bill now moves to the full Senate, where lobbying from crypto companies, banks, and consumer-protection advocates is likely to intensify.US Senate committee advances crypto bill in milestone for digital assets | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments over the Trump administration's attempt to revive executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The firms had previously won in lower court, where judges found the orders unconstitutional. The executive orders punished the firms over issues including their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies, and political connections. They also sought to restrict the firms' lawyers from federal buildings, cancel government contracts held by their clients, and remove security clearances from firm employees. The Justice Department argued that the firms' business relationships and hiring decisions are not protected by the First Amendment, and that courts should not second-guess presidential decisions involving national security. Judges on the D.C. Circuit appeared skeptical of the administration's broad view of presidential authority, especially the claim that security clearance decisions are unreviewable even when allegedly made for improper reasons. Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders threatened the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to represent unpopular clients without government retaliation. He warned that accepting the administration's theory could allow presidents to punish lawyers or firms based on political affiliation. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, seemed more receptive to the administration's argument that courts have limited power to review security clearance decisions. The case is part of a broader fight over presidential power and whether the government can use executive authority to punish lawyers and firms viewed as political opponents. The appeals court also heard a related case involving lawyer Mark Zaid's security clearance. Any ruling from the D.C. Circuit could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.US appeals court questions Trump's push to punish major law firms | 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: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | 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: Mexican-American WarOn May 13, 1846, Congress approved President James K. Polk's request for a declaration of war against Mexico, formally beginning the Mexican-American War. Polk had told Congress that Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil,” after a clash between Mexican forces and American troops near the Rio Grande. The problem was that the land where the clash occurred was disputed: the United States claimed the Rio Grande as the border of Texas, while Mexico maintained that the border was farther north at the Nueces River. Congress accepted Polk's framing and passed the war declaration, but the vote did not settle the legal question of whether the president had maneuvered the country into war. Many Whigs saw the conflict not as a defensive war, but as a war of expansion designed to seize Mexican territory.One of the sharpest critics was a young Whig congressman from Illinois, then serving his only term in the House of Representatives. In December 1847, a one Abraham Lincoln introduced what became known as the Spot Resolutions, demanding that Polk identify the precise “spot” where American blood had supposedly been shed. Lincoln wanted to know whether that spot was truly American soil, or whether U.S. troops had been sent into disputed territory first. In one of the resolutions, he asked whether “the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed” was actually American soil at the time. The challenge was simple but devastating: if Polk could not prove the location was within the United States, then his legal justification for war began to fall apart.Lincoln's attack did not stop the war, and it made him unpopular with many voters who thought he was undermining American soldiers in the field. Critics even mocked him as “Spotty Lincoln.” But the episode revealed an early version of the Lincoln who would later become president: a lawyer-politician who focused on the exact words used to justify government power. The May 13 declaration therefore stands not only as the beginning of a war, but as an early constitutional fight over presidential war-making, disputed borders, and whether Congress had been asked to approve a war on a false premise.Texas has sued Netflix in state court, accusing the company of misleading subscribers about how it collects and uses viewing data. The lawsuit claims Netflix built its reputation by presenting itself as a paid, ad-free alternative to companies that rely heavily on user tracking and advertising. According to Texas, Netflix nevertheless collected large amounts of information about what users watched, how they browsed, and how they interacted with the platform.The state alleges that Netflix profited from that data by using it for advertising and sharing or selling it to outside companies without proper consent. The petition also criticizes features such as autoplay, describing them as design choices that push users toward binge-watching by removing natural stopping points. Texas further claims that Netflix marketed itself as family-friendly while still tracking children's viewing and browsing behavior, even if it has not yet targeted children with ads. Attorney General Ken Paxton said the company misrepresented itself as safer and more privacy-protective than it really was.The lawsuit brings claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and seeks civil penalties, an injunction, and an order requiring Netflix to delete data allegedly collected through deceptive practices.Texas Sues Netflix Over ‘Staggering' Data Logging - Law360Federal prosecutors have brought the first criminal charges against companies involved in operating the M/V Dali, the container ship that struck Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge in March 2024. The indictment names Singapore-based Synergy Marine, India-based Synergy Maritime, and Radhakrishnan Karthik Nair, who served as technical superintendent for the ship. Prosecutors accuse them of recklessly operating the vessel, falsifying inspection records, failing to report a hazardous condition to the Coast Guard, obstructing agency proceedings, and lying to National Transportation Safety Board investigators. The crash killed six construction workers, destroyed the bridge, disrupted access to the Port of Baltimore, and allegedly caused billions of dollars in economic losses. According to prosecutors, the Dali had electrical and mechanical problems that made it vulnerable to blackouts, and Synergy employees improperly used a flushing pump as a regular fuel supply pump for generators.The government claims that if the proper pumps had been used, the ship could have regained power in time to avoid the bridge. The indictment also includes environmental allegations tied to pollutants released into the Patapsco River, including oil, shipping containers, and bridge debris. Synergy denies wrongdoing and says the Justice Department is wrongly treating a tragic accident as a crime. The company argues that the crash was caused by a loose wire, consistent with the NTSB's findings, and says the DOJ's theory conflicts with maritime experts' conclusions. Separate civil litigation over liability is still moving forward, including claims by Maryland, Baltimore, cargo interests, insurers, and others. Maryland also finalized a $2.25 billion settlement with Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine, while continuing claims against the shipbuilder, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. Planning for the Key Bridge replacement is underway, with the new bridge expected to cost between $4.3 billion and $5.2 billion and be completed by late 2030.Ship Managers Indicted Over Baltimore Bridge Disaster - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I wrote about how Congress made the adoption tax credit partially refundable beginning in 2025, a change that could help families manage the high costs of adoption. The policy is meant to make the credit more useful when families actually need the money, since adoption can involve major expenses such as agency fees, legal bills, travel, and other costs that arrive long before any tax benefit is received. But refundable credits also raise fraud concerns for the IRS because they can result in direct payments from the government.The column warns that the IRS may respond by delaying refunds, issuing broad documentation requests, and placing legitimate families through lengthy reviews. That concern is based on what happened in 2010 and 2011, when the adoption credit was fully refundable and the IRS subjected many claims to extra scrutiny. During the 2012 filing season, 90% of returns claiming the credit received additional review and 69% were selected for audit. Adoption claims are often complex, not suspicious, because they can involve international agencies, state courts, amended documents, failed placements, special-needs rules, and unusual expense records. The IRS should issue clear guidance before filing season so families know what documents they need to submit with Form 8839.It should also create a standardized checklist or attachment and a dedicated review track staffed by employees trained on adoption-credit rules. Without better guidance and staffing, the refundable portion of the credit may become less useful because families could face audits, professional fees, delayed refunds, or fear of claiming the benefit at all. The broader point is that Congress cannot expand a benefit, demand fraud prevention, reduce administrative capacity, and then be surprised when taxpayers get stuck in delays.Adoption Credit's Refundability Makes It Valuable—and Vulnerable 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: Anti-Spitting LawsOn May 12, 1896, New York City adopted one of the country's best-known early anti-spitting laws, aimed at stopping the spread of tuberculosis. At the time, tuberculosis was one of the deadliest diseases in American cities, and public health officials were increasingly focused on sputum as a source of infection. The new rule made it illegal to spit in public places, including streets, sidewalks, public buildings, and transit spaces. That may sound like a small matter today, but in the late nineteenth century it was part of a much larger legal campaign to use city power to fight disease.The law reflected the growing belief that personal habits could become public harms when they created risks for others. It also showed how local governments were beginning to treat public health as a matter of regulation, enforcement, and criminal penalty. Violators could face fines, and in some cases arrest, which turned a common social habit into a legally punishable act. The ordinance was not just about cleanliness; it was about using law to change behavior before illness spread.New York's approach influenced other cities, which passed similar anti-spitting rules as tuberculosis campaigns expanded across the country. The measure also raised a familiar legal question: when does protecting public health justify limiting individual freedom in public spaces? That question would appear again in later fights over quarantine, vaccination, sanitation, smoking bans, and other health regulations.Anti-spitting laws are a reminder that public health law often develops through ordinary, everyday conduct rather than dramatic courtroom battles. The legal element here is the police power, because the ordinance shows how local governments used their authority to protect health, safety, and welfare by regulating conduct in shared public spaces.Andrew Left, the founder of Citron Research and a well-known short seller, is set to go on trial in Los Angeles over federal criminal charges that he manipulated the market and misled investors. Prosecutors say Left used his public profile, including social media posts and television appearances, to announce trading positions in companies such as Nvidia and Tesla while secretly closing those positions soon after price moves. The government alleges that this strategy allowed him to make at least $16 million.Prosecutors also claim Left gave hedge funds advance notice of his public calls in exchange for compensation and hid those arrangements through fake invoices. Left has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers argue that he made honest market commentary in good faith. They also say there is no law requiring an investor to hold a position for any particular amount of time after speaking publicly about it. Jury selection is expected to begin this week, and the trial could include testimony from retail investors and other witnesses. The case has drawn attention because short sellers often argue that their work is protected speech and that they help expose fraud or overvaluation in public companies.Some legal experts see the prosecution as an aggressive theory, especially because investors are generally allowed to change their minds about trades. At the same time, the Justice Department appears to be trying to prove more than ordinary opinion or trading strategy by alleging deception, secret coordination, and knowingly false statements. If convicted of securities fraud, Left could face a lengthy prison sentence.Short seller Andrew Left to stand trial in LA over manipulation charges | ReutersSome incoming law students are starting school in May or June instead of waiting until the fall so they can qualify under the current federal student loan system before new limits take effect on July 1. A few law schools already had summer start programs, but demand has increased as students try to avoid the new loan caps for professional degrees. Stetson University College of Law and Rutgers Law School even created summer start options specifically to help students borrow under the existing rules. Under the expiring system, graduate and professional students can borrow up to the full cost of tuition and living expenses through federal loans.The new system will cap federal borrowing for professional programs at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, which could leave some law students needing private loans. That is a major concern because private loans may have higher interest rates, stricter credit requirements, and fewer protections than federal loans. Stetson's dean said the early start option may be especially helpful for students with poor credit or existing debt. The Education Department has defended the new caps as a way to reduce excessive borrowing and pressure schools to lower costs. Several schools, including Seattle University, Rutgers, Ave Maria, and Drexel, report increased interest in summer programs. Administrators say the loan changes are driving much of that demand, though some worry that many applicants still do not understand how much the new rules could affect them.Some US law students enroll early to beat the federal loan clock | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to immediately approve Elon Musk's $1.5 million settlement with the SEC over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake. The SEC had accused Musk of waiting too long to report that he had acquired more than 5% of Twitter's shares before later revealing a 9.2% stake in April 2022. According to the agency, that delay allowed Musk to save about $150 million before he ultimately bought Twitter for $44 billion. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she needs more information before approving the deal, including whether it is fair, serves the public interest, and is free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered Musk and the SEC to appear in court on May 13 and be ready to propose a schedule for briefs defending the settlement. The proposed deal would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or return the money the SEC says he saved. Musk has said the delayed filing was accidental and has argued that the lawsuit was politically motivated. The case also comes as the SEC, now under Chairman Paul Atkins, is shifting its enforcement priorities under the Trump administration. The timing of the settlement talks has drawn attention because they were disclosed shortly after the SEC's enforcement chief left her post. For now, the judge made clear that she will not simply sign off on the agreement without scrutiny.US judge will not rubber-stamp Elon Musk settlement with SEC | 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: Christmas is Canceled in MassachusettsOn May 11, 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law making it illegal to celebrate Christmas. The law imposed a fine of five shillings on anyone who observed the holiday by feasting, taking the day off from work, or engaging in other forms of celebration. To modern readers, this can sound like a strange kind of anti-holiday law, but it reflected the religious and legal culture of Puritan New England. Many Puritans rejected Christmas because they believed it had no clear biblical foundation and was associated with Catholic tradition, disorderly public behavior, and old English customs they considered improper. In their view, the law was not merely about stopping a party; it was about enforcing a disciplined religious society.The colony's leaders used law as a tool to shape public morality, religious practice, and daily life. This was common in early colonial legal systems, where civil authority and religious authority were often closely connected. The Christmas ban also shows how different early American ideas of “religious liberty” could be from later constitutional understandings. Rather than protecting a broad right to celebrate or worship differently, the Massachusetts Bay Colony often used law to preserve a particular religious order. The five-shilling fine was not enormous, but it was meaningful enough to signal that Christmas observance was legally disfavored.The law remained part of a broader colonial effort to regulate conduct that officials believed threatened communal discipline. Over time, attitudes toward Christmas changed, especially as New England became more religiously diverse and less strictly Puritan. The episode stands as a reminder that American legal history includes not only the expansion of rights, but also earlier moments when law was used to suppress customs now considered ordinary.The legal industry added 2,400 jobs in April, bringing total sector employment to about 1.24 million, according to seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was a rebound from a small decline in March and placed legal employment slightly above both March and February levels. Compared with the same time last year, the sector had 20,800 more jobs. The legal sector numbers include lawyers, paralegals, and other legal-related professional roles.The rebound follows a long stretch of legal industry growth that was interrupted by March's dip. Two major firms recently announced job cuts: McDermott Will & Schulte is trimming a small number of associates, while Allen Overy Shearman Sterling is reducing roles in its business services team. Across the broader U.S. economy, employers added 115,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%.Legal Industry Bounces Back, Gaining 2,400 Jobs In April - Law360Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-backed congressional map that had been designed to improve the party's chances in four Republican-held U.S. House districts. The court ruled 4-3 that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the proper process when they moved quickly to put the redistricting plan before voters. The map had been approved by voters in an April special election, but Republicans challenged the measure, arguing that the required intervening election had not properly occurred before the second legislative approval. The court's majority agreed, emphasizing that more than 1.3 million early votes had already been cast by the time lawmakers first approved the proposed constitutional amendment.Democrats criticized the ruling as overriding the will of voters, while Republicans celebrated it as a major win ahead of the midterm elections. Virginia Democrats said they would seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling could make it harder for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a very narrow majority. The dispute is part of a broader national fight over mid-cycle redistricting, with both parties seeking favorable maps before the November elections. Republican-led states in the South are pursuing their own redistricting efforts after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Election analyst Kyle Kondik said the Virginia ruling improves Republican odds, though broader political conditions could still affect the outcome in November.Virginia court tosses Democratic map, dealing major blow to party's midterm hopes | ReutersInstructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management platform, is facing at least seven proposed class actions after disclosing unauthorized activity in its system. Canvas is widely used by schools and universities to manage coursework, grades, assignments, and communications. Instructure first announced the incident on May 1, then later reported more unauthorized activity connected to the same breach and temporarily took Canvas offline. The company has since restored much of the platform, but its Free-for-Teacher accounts remain disabled because Instructure believes a vulnerability there may have been exploited.The lawsuits, filed in Utah and New York federal courts, accuse Instructure of failing to adequately protect personal information belonging to students, teachers, and staff. The data allegedly at risk includes names, email addresses, student ID numbers, private messages, enrolled courses, and confidential communications with teachers. The complaints say the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed to have accessed information tied to more than 275 million users.Plaintiffs argue Instructure should have used stronger safeguards, including better encryption, access controls, employee training, monitoring, and protocols for handling sensitive data. They also claim affected users now face loss of control over their information and a heightened risk of identity theft. One New York plaintiff also sued KKR, which acquired Instructure in 2024, and argued the breach was foreseeable in light of earlier major attacks on education software companies. Instructure has said it is investigating, communicating with affected customers, and strengthening protections around access, permissions, token management, monitoring, and related workflows.EdTech Platform Canvas Accused Of Lax Security After Breach - Law360The Trump administration appealed a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that rejected its use of a 1970s trade law to impose a 10% global tariff. The court ruled 2-1 that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not designed to address trade deficits caused by the United States importing more goods than it exports. The decision only blocked the tariffs as applied to the three plaintiffs who sued: two small businesses and the state of Washington. Even though the tariffs were temporary and set to expire in July unless Congress extended them, the ruling marked another legal setback for the administration's broader tariff agenda.The case followed a separate Supreme Court decision that invalidated earlier Trump tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that loss, the administration turned to Section 122 as a replacement authority for a 10% import tariff. President Trump criticized the trade court's ruling, while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration expected to win on appeal. The dispute could lead to another major fight over tariff refunds, potentially involving billions of dollars. The timing is also significant because the ruling came shortly before Trump was scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss trade tensions.The administration is separately pursuing broader tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which addresses unfair trade practices and has survived past legal challenges.Trump administration appeals latest court loss on tariffs | 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: V-E DayOn May 8, 1945, the Allies celebrated Victory in Europe Day, or V-E Day, after Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender brought the European theater of World War II to an end. The surrender did more than end a military campaign; it opened the door to one of the most important legal reckonings in modern history. In the months that followed, the Allied powers created the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to prosecute major Nazi leaders for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These trials helped establish that individuals, including heads of state and military officials, could be held personally responsible under international law. That principle was a major departure from older ideas that treated war primarily as a matter between nations rather than as a source of individual criminal liability.V-E Day also set the stage for the legal rejection of the defense that officials were merely “following orders” when participating in atrocities. The postwar prosecutions influenced later human rights law, including the Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They also helped shape the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which strengthened protections for civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded soldiers. The legal aftermath of V-E Day showed that victory would not be measured only by military surrender, but also by whether law could respond to mass violence. It forced courts and governments to confront how ordinary legal systems had failed under fascism and how international law might prevent future atrocities. The Nuremberg legacy remains central to modern debates over command responsibility, aggressive war, and accountability for crimes committed during armed conflict. May 8 therefore stands not only as a day of celebration, but as a turning point in the development of international criminal law.A U.S. trade court ruled that President Trump's latest temporary 10% global tariffs were not properly justified under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The decision was narrow, blocking the tariffs only for two private importers, Basic Fun! and Burlap & Barrel, along with the State of Washington. The tariffs remain in place for all other importers while the Trump administration considers an appeal, and they are currently set to expire in July. The court found that Section 122, which allows short-term tariffs to address serious balance-of-payments problems or protect the dollar, did not fit the trade deficits cited by Trump. Most of the state plaintiffs were denied broader relief because the court found they lacked standing, since they had not shown they directly paid or would pay the tariffs. Washington was treated differently because it submitted evidence that tariffs were paid through the University of Washington. The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision that had already struck down a separate set of Trump tariffs imposed under a national emergency law. The administration is expected to keep pursuing tariffs through other legal routes, especially Section 301 of the Trade Act, which deals with unfair trade practices. Lawyers and trade experts expect further appeals and possible lawsuits from other importers seeking similar relief or refunds. For now, the ruling is legally important but limited in practical effect because it does not stop the tariffs nationwide.US trade court rules Trump tariffs illegal, but issues narrow block | ReutersNew York is preparing to ban law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, from wearing masks during ordinary duty operations. Governor Kathy Hochul announced the plan as part of a broader agreement with state lawmakers on New York's 2027 budget. The proposal would allow masks only in limited situations where there is a real operational need, such as the use of a gas mask. The budget agreement also includes immigration-related limits on cooperation between state law enforcement and ICE. Under the plan, state law enforcement would be barred from helping ICE carry out federal immigration actions. ICE would also be restricted from entering schools, healthcare facilities, homes, and other sensitive locations unless agents have a judicial warrant. State officials expect the Democratic-led legislature to approve the measures soon. Similar mask restrictions have been pursued in California and New Jersey. Those efforts have already drawn lawsuits from the U.S. Justice Department. A federal judge struck down California's ban earlier this year, finding that it unlawfully discriminated against federal officers. That history suggests New York's measure is likely to face a federal legal challenge as well.New York state set to ban law enforcement, including ICE, from wearing masks | ReutersIllinois lawmakers advanced an amended bill meant to limit outside investor influence over law firms. The state Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure 8-1, sending it to the full Senate for further consideration. The bill targets arrangements involving law firm management services organizations, often called MSOs, and other non-lawyer-owned entities connected to legal practices. It would bar those entities from interfering with lawyers' professional judgment, hiring decisions, or access to firm documents. It would also prevent outside entities from charging fees tied directly or indirectly to a law firm's fees or revenue. The amended version allows law firms to repay loans or credit from outside entities, as long as repayment is not tied to the firm's financial performance. It also narrows the bill so that it applies to Illinois lawyers and firms representing clients at least partly on a contingency-fee basis. Lawyers would have to disclose MSO agreements to their clients. Supporters say the bill is designed to keep legal decisions in the hands of attorneys rather than investors seeking profits. Critics argue the bill is too broad and may interfere with the Illinois Supreme Court's authority to regulate the legal profession. The Illinois House already passed an earlier version, but it would need to approve the amended bill before it could go to the governor.Illinois advances bill to limit investor influence on law firms | 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: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | 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: Chinese Exclusion ActOn May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law. The law imposed a 10-year ban on the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States. It also made Chinese immigrants already in the country ineligible for naturalized citizenship, marking a major turn toward federal immigration restriction. The National Archives describes it as the first significant U.S. law restricting immigration and notes that it targeted an ethnic working group on the theory that it threatened public order.The law grew out of anti-Chinese racism and labor anxiety, especially in the American West, where Chinese workers were blamed for low wages and job competition. Although the Act formally applied to “Chinese laborers,” its enforcement burdened many Chinese people seeking entry, including those who claimed exempt status. The National Archives notes that the law helped create a broader framework for later race- and class-based exclusionary immigration policy.The Act was not temporary in practice. Congress extended it through the Geary Act of 1892, later made the exclusion regime permanent, and did not repeal the ban until 1943, during World War II, when the United States and China were allies.OpenAI president Greg Brockman testified in federal court that Elon Musk once supported changing OpenAI from a nonprofit into a for-profit company, but wanted full control of the organization as part of that shift. Brockman said Musk believed the nonprofit model could not raise enough money to build advanced AI systems. According to Brockman, Musk also said he needed an $80 billion stake to help fund a self-sustaining city on Mars. Brockman described a tense 2017 meeting where Musk allegedly rejected a proposed equity structure, became angry, took a painting made for him by Ilya Sutskever, and left while threatening to pause funding.Musk's lawsuit claims OpenAI and Sam Altman misled him into donating $38 million to a nonprofit that later abandoned its charitable mission in favor of profit. Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages for the nonprofit and wants Altman and Brockman removed from leadership. OpenAI argues that Musk is upset because he left before the company became highly successful and is now trying to gain control while also advancing his own AI company, xAI. Brockman also faced questions about his own financial interests, including testimony that his OpenAI stake is worth nearly $30 billion and evidence of an old diary entry about reaching $1 billion. OpenAI later created a for-profit unit controlled by the nonprofit, which helped it raise massive sums for computing power, hiring, and expansion.Musk wanted $80 billion to colonize Mars, OpenAI president testifies at trial | ReutersPublishers Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill, along with author Scott Turow, sued Meta in federal court in Manhattan over its AI training practices. The lawsuit claims Meta used millions of copyrighted books and journal articles without permission to train its Llama large language models. The works allegedly included textbooks, scientific publications, and novels, such as books by N.K. Jemisin and Peter Brown. The publishers are seeking class-action status so they can represent a broader group of copyright owners. They are also asking for monetary damages.Meta responded that AI training can qualify as fair use and said it plans to fight the case. The publishers argue that using allegedly pirated copies of creative and scholarly works is not the same as lawful innovation. The case joins a growing wave of lawsuits by authors, news organizations, artists, and other creators against AI companies, including Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. These lawsuits largely turn on whether using copyrighted works to train AI models is legally protected because the resulting systems create something new and transformative. Courts have not yet settled the issue, and early rulings have pointed in different directions. Anthropic previously resolved one major author lawsuit for $1.5 billion, showing how financially significant these disputes can become.Major publishers sue Meta for copyright infringement over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court allowed its recent Louisiana voting-rights ruling to take effect earlier than usual, clearing the way for political and legal consequences before the November midterm elections. The Court's April 29 decision had struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second Black-majority district. That ruling weakened a major part of the Voting Rights Act by limiting challenges to maps that allegedly dilute minority voting power. Normally, the Supreme Court waits 32 days before issuing its formal judgment, giving the losing side time to seek rehearing. Here, the Court agreed to speed up the process after a request from the voters who had won the case.The move helps Louisiana Republicans pursue a new congressional map and may weaken lawsuits challenging Governor Jeff Landry's decision to delay the state's May 16 congressional primaries. Some challengers had argued that Landry acted too soon because the Supreme Court's ruling had not formally taken effect yet. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the Court's accelerated action had created disorder in Louisiana. The case is part of a broader national fight over redistricting, especially as both parties seek advantages in House races. The dispute began after Louisiana drew a second majority-Black district in 2024 to address a prior court ruling that the old map harmed Black voters under the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court later held that the replacement map relied too heavily on race, violating equal protection principles.US Supreme Court lets Voting Rights Act ruling take effect ahead of schedule | 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: Prayer in … Local Government Meetings?On this day in legal history, May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway, a major Establishment Clause case about prayer at local government meetings. The town of Greece, New York, opened its monthly board meetings with prayers delivered by invited clergy. For years, nearly all of those clergy were Christian, and many of the prayers used explicitly Christian language. Two residents sued, arguing that the practice aligned the town government with Christianity and made non-Christian attendees feel like outsiders in their own local government.In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the town's practice. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court, emphasizing the long historical tradition of legislative prayer in the United States, including Congress's own use of chaplains dating back to the Founding era. The majority reasoned that the Establishment Clause does not require legislative prayers to be stripped of sectarian references. Instead, the key question was whether the practice coerced participation, denigrated other faiths, or proselytized in a way that crossed a constitutional line.The dissent, led by Justice Elena Kagan, saw the case differently. She argued that town board meetings are not like sessions of Congress: ordinary citizens attend them to seek zoning changes, permits, and other direct government action. In that setting, she warned, repeated explicitly Christian prayers could pressure residents to participate or mark them as outsiders before officials who held power over their daily lives. The case matters because it illustrates how much Establishment Clause doctrine turns on competing ideas of history, coercion, equality, and civic belonging. Town of Greece did not end the debate over prayer in public life; it sharpened the question of when tradition becomes exclusion.The Supreme Court temporarily restored a federal rule allowing mifepristone, the abortion pill, to be prescribed through telemedicine and delivered by mail. Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay that pauses a 5th Circuit order reinstating an older requirement that patients receive the drug only after an in-person clinician visit.The stay is temporary and mainly gives the justices time to consider emergency requests from mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro. Louisiana, which brought the challenge, must respond by Thursday, and the stay is set to expire May 11 unless the Court extends it or acts more formally.The case is another front in the post-Dobbs fight over abortion access. The Supreme Court rejected an earlier challenge to mifepristone restrictions in 2024 on standing grounds, but Louisiana's new case argues that the Biden-era FDA rule expanding mail and telehealth access unlawfully interferes with the state's near-total abortion ban. Abortion-rights groups frame the challenge as political and contrary to medical evidence, while anti-abortion advocates argue that relaxed access rules remove important safety safeguards.US Supreme Court lets abortion pill mail delivery restart for now | ReutersNew Mexico is asking a state judge to declare Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms a public nuisance and order $3.7 billion in abatement funding, along with major design changes aimed at protecting minors. The case follows a March jury verdict finding that Meta misrepresented the safety of its platforms for young users and awarding $375 million in damages, a verdict Meta says it will appeal.This phase of the case is being tried to Judge Bryan Biedscheid, who must decide whether Meta's platforms amount to a public nuisance under New Mexico law. If he agrees, he could order broad remedies, including age verification, changes to recommendation algorithms for minors, and limits on features such as autoplay and infinite scroll.Meta argues that New Mexico is trying to stretch public nuisance law beyond its traditional bounds. Its lawyer said the state is not alleging interference with a public right like clean air or open roads, but instead seeking sweeping regulation based on individual harms—something Meta says should be handled by legislators, not a single judge. The judge himself signaled concern that some requested remedies might be overreach, noting that he is not a regulator or legislature.New Mexico counters that Meta knowingly designed addictive platforms and failed to protect children from mental health harms and sexual exploitation. The case is significant because it could test whether public nuisance law can be used not just to seek damages from social media companies, but to force platform-level design changes.New Mexico seeks $3.7 billion, changes to Meta platforms in youth harm trial | ReutersMassachusetts' highest court sounded skeptical of Kalshi's argument that only federal commodities regulators can oversee its sports-event contracts. Kalshi says it is a federally regulated prediction market, registered with the CFTC, and that its contracts are swaps governed exclusively by federal law under Dodd-Frank.Massachusetts argues that, whatever Kalshi calls the product, users are effectively betting on sports without a state gaming license. Several justices pressed Kalshi on how its contracts differ from ordinary sports bets, with one justice noting that if someone wants to gamble on a game, Kalshi offers a way to do it.The case is part of a broader national fight over prediction markets, sports betting, and federal preemption. Kalshi recently won a favorable ruling from the 3rd Circuit in a dispute with New Jersey regulators, and the CFTC has supported Kalshi's position in Massachusetts. But the Massachusetts justices appeared concerned that accepting Kalshi's theory would sharply limit states' traditional authority over gambling unless Congress clearly said it intended that result.If the state wins, Massachusetts could become the second state after Nevada to have a court-ordered ban on Kalshi sports-event contracts. The larger issue is whether prediction markets can avoid state gambling law by framing sports wagers as federally regulated financial contracts.Massachusetts top court appears open to state ban on Kalshi sports betting | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if the United States wants to become the world's crypto capital, France's experience with crypto kidnappings and alleged tax-data leaks should be treated as a warning. I'm not arguing against crypto tax reporting; in fact, better reporting can make tax compliance more realistic for taxpayers and enforcement more administrable for the IRS. But I argue that crypto reporting creates a different kind of privacy risk because identity-linked ownership data can become a physical safety risk, not just a financial-fraud risk.The core point is that crypto is unusually portable, irreversible, and vulnerable to coercion. If criminals learn that someone owns valuable crypto, the path from threat to transfer can be frighteningly short. That makes tax and compliance databases more dangerous than ordinary financial records if access is poorly controlled or if insiders, contractors, vendors, or hackers can expose taxpayer information.So in the piece I argue Congress should not build crypto reporting rules first and think about privacy later. If lawmakers want more reporting from exchanges, platforms, vendors, and taxpayers, they also need a crypto-specific privacy architecture: data minimization, role-based access controls, automated access logs, audits, breach notifications, and real penalties for misuse. My takeaway is that pro-crypto policy cannot just mean lower taxes, lighter regulation, and friendlier rhetoric. If the government wants crypto brought into the mainstream financial system, it also has to build rules that protect taxpayers from having compliance data turned into a criminal target list. 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: Freedom RidersOn May 4, 1961, the first Freedom Riders left Washington, D.C., by bus for New Orleans, beginning a direct challenge to segregation in interstate travel. The riders were an interracial group organized by the Congress of Racial Equality, and they set out to test whether Southern states and private carriers would follow federal law. The Supreme Court had already made clear in cases such as Boynton v. Virginia that segregation in facilities connected to interstate bus travel was unconstitutional. But in much of the South, those rulings existed more on paper than in practice. Bus stations, waiting rooms, lunch counters, and restrooms remained divided by race, often with the cooperation or indifference of local officials.The Freedom Riders deliberately entered that space between legal doctrine and daily reality. By riding together, sitting together, and using facilities marked for white and Black passengers, they forced the country to confront the failure of enforcement. Their journey showed that a constitutional right means little when states, businesses, and police can ignore it without consequence. The riders were met with arrests, intimidation, and mob violence, making the legal stakes impossible for federal officials to avoid. Their campaign placed pressure on the Kennedy administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission to act more forcefully.Later in 1961, federal regulators issued rules requiring the desegregation of interstate bus and rail facilities and the removal of segregation signs. The Freedom Rides therefore became more than a protest against Jim Crow transportation rules. They became a test of whether federal constitutional law could overcome local resistance. May 4 stands as the date when a small group of riders exposed the difference between winning rights in court and making those rights real in public life.New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a major jury verdict against Meta in March, with jurors ordering the company to pay $375 million over claims that it concealed the harms Instagram and Facebook pose to minors and failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation, bullying, and harmful content. The next stage of the case is a bench trial before Judge Bryan Biedscheid, where the state will seek court-ordered changes to Meta's platforms and argue that the company's apps amount to a public nuisance. New Mexico is asking for a wide range of remedies, including safety warnings, stronger detection of child sexual abuse material, limits on teen usage, removal of infinite scroll, hidden like counts, restrictions on AI chatbot interactions with minors, and appointment of a child safety monitor. Meta argues that these requests are sweeping, technically unrealistic, and would effectively require a different version of Instagram to operate in New Mexico. The company also says some requested remedies, such as warning labels about teen mental health harms, would violate the First Amendment by compelling speech.Legal experts say the injunction phase may be even more significant than the damages award because it could reshape how digital platforms are designed and regulated. They also note that the case raises difficult questions about whether public nuisance law is an appropriate way to address alleged harms from social media platforms. The judge declined to delay the second phase, saying the evidence from the jury trial remains fresh and will help him evaluate the requested relief. The state argues the trial should be more streamlined than the first phase and says Meta cannot claim surprise over the public nuisance theory. Meta maintains that New Mexico is wrongly focusing on one platform while ignoring the many other apps teens use, and says the proposed mandates would interfere with parental rights and free expression.What To Watch For As Meta Stares Down NM Injunction Trial - Law360 UKThe Department of Defense announced new agreements with several major technology companies to bring their artificial intelligence tools into classified military network environments. The deals involve companies including Nvidia, Google, SpaceX, Reflection, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services, and are meant to support lawful operational use of AI at high security levels. The Pentagon framed the move as part of a broader effort to make the U.S. military more AI-centered and to help service members make faster and better decisions across different areas of conflict.The announcement also emphasized that the department does not want to rely on only one AI company or model. Instead, it plans to offer access to a range of AI systems so it can preserve flexibility and avoid becoming dependent on a single vendor. Anthropic was not included in the new agreements, which is significant because the company is currently in litigation after the Pentagon labeled it a supply chain risk to national security. OpenAI had previously reached its own agreement with the Defense Department for use in classified settings and reportedly asked the department to include other AI companies as well.The Pentagon also said more than 1.3 million personnel have used its official AI platform, GenAI.mil. Amazon Web Services said it has long supported military technology needs and says it will continue helping the department modernize its systems.Pentagon Reaches AI Deals For Classified Network Use - Law360A federal appeals court temporarily blocked a 2023 FDA rule that allowed mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion, to be dispensed by mail rather than in person. The unanimous decision came from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, which said Louisiana was likely to succeed in its challenge to the Biden-era rule. The ruling is not final, but it immediately narrows access to mifepristone, especially for patients in states that have banned or sharply restricted abortion.Louisiana argued that the FDA failed to adequately consider safety risks when it removed the in-person dispensing requirement. The Biden administration had defended the rule by pointing to evidence that mifepristone is safe and effective, with serious adverse events occurring in fewer than 1% of patients. Abortion rights advocates warned that restoring in-person dispensing rules would create confusion and make abortion care much harder to obtain. The decision comes amid a broader set of lawsuits over mifepristone, including challenges to the drug's original approval and later FDA rules expanding access.Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro have intervened to defend the FDA's regulation because their businesses depend heavily on mifepristone sales. The case may next go to the full Fifth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also intersects with newer fights over telehealth abortion prescriptions and state shield laws protecting providers in states where abortion remains legal.US court blocks mail-order access to abortion drugs, for now | 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: May Day vs. Law DayOn May 1, 1958, the United States marked the first Law Day, a civic observance created after President Dwight D. Eisenhower designated the date as a national occasion to honor the rule of law. Eisenhower's proclamation called on lawyers, journalists, broadcasters, schools, and civic groups to help the public better understand the American legal system. Congress later gave the observance formal status in 1961, making May 1 the country's official annual Law Day. The American Bar Association traces the idea to its former president Charles S. Rhyne, who wanted a national celebration of the legal system and the constitutional principles that support it.But May 1 already carried a different legal meaning long before it became Law Day. In the 1880s, organized labor made May 1 central to the campaign for the eight-hour workday. Labor leaders had called for May 1, 1886, to be the date when eight hours would be treated as the standard legal day's work. Workers around the country responded with strikes and rallies, turning May Day into an enduring symbol of labor rights. In Chicago, the demonstrations led into the Haymarket events, where violence, prosecutions, death sentences, and later pardons made the episode a lasting part of the legal history of labor organizing, criminal justice, and political speech.That makes May 1 one of the more complicated dates on the American legal calendar. Officially, it is Law Day, a celebration of courts, constitutional government, and respect for legal institutions. Historically, it is also May Day, a reminder that many legal protections were not simply handed down by courts or legislatures. They were demanded by workers, protesters, organizers, and communities willing to challenge existing law in the hope of changing it.A California federal trial over Elon Musk's challenge to OpenAI's shift toward a for-profit structure was paused Thursday after Musk's lawyers appeared to accidentally make Musk's $97.4 billion offer for OpenAI assets fair game at trial. The issue began when Jared Birchall, who runs Musk's family office, testified that he helped organize investors who made the offer because they believed Sam Altman's role on both sides of OpenAI's restructuring created a conflict. OpenAI's lawyers then challenged Birchall's testimony, arguing that his views about Altman were partly based on what attorneys told him rather than his own firsthand knowledge.Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sent the jury home early and questioned Birchall herself, pressing him on how the investor group arrived at the massive offer amount. She seemed unconvinced by his answers and told Musk's counsel that they had “opened the door” to evidence that previously had been limited by a magistrate judge. The judge then demanded to know who on Musk's team suggested asking Birchall about the offer, and attorney Marc Toberoff ultimately said he had. Birchall also acknowledged that Toberoff created the financial analysis behind the offer and sent a letter to California regulators opposing OpenAI's restructuring.Musk's lawyers argued that OpenAI first brought up the offer letter during Musk's cross-examination and that there had been confusion about whether the document was admitted by agreement. Judge Gonzalez Rogers did not immediately decide how to handle the dispute and set a Friday hearing on the issue and jury instructions. The broader trial centers on Musk's claim that OpenAI, Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft breached OpenAI's charitable-trust obligations by moving away from its nonprofit mission for private gain. Earlier in the day, the judge also barred Musk's AI expert from testifying about broad catastrophic risks of artificial intelligence, saying the case is about breach of trust, not the future danger of AI.OpenAI Judge Pauses Trial To Probe Musk Attys On $97B Bid - Law360 UKPurdue Pharma received approval from a New York bankruptcy judge for a $125 million settlement with McKinsey & Co. over claims connected to McKinsey's consulting work on Purdue's opioid sales and marketing. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane found the deal fair and reasonable, allowing Purdue to stay on schedule to exit Chapter 11 and activate its $7.4 billion bankruptcy plan. McKinsey will pay the settlement in two parts, starting with $65 million shortly after Purdue leaves bankruptcy. About $50 million from that first payment will go to personal injury claimants, while the remaining money will benefit state and local governments and Native American tribes through a trust.The deal followed mediation involving Purdue, the unsecured creditors committee, and other parties, with the creditors committee prepared to sue McKinsey if settlement talks failed. Purdue's bankruptcy has been heavily shaped by disputes over opioid-related liability, the Sackler family's contributions, and the legality of releasing third-party claims. The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling against nonconsensual third-party releases forced Purdue and its creditors to renegotiate the plan. The revised plan now includes a $6.5 billion Sackler family contribution and $900 million from Purdue. Purdue will be dissolved and replaced by Knoa Pharma, a public benefit company focused on addiction treatment and overdose reversal medications. The settlement also comes after McKinsey separately agreed to pay $650 million to resolve federal charges tied to its Purdue work.Purdue's $125M McKinsey Deal Gets OK Ahead Of Ch. 11 Exit - Law360A Reuters analysis found that Big Law hiring remains heavily concentrated among a small group of elite law schools, even though remote recruiting was expected to broaden access. In 2025, only 16 law schools sent at least half of their graduating class into associate jobs at firms with 251 or more lawyers. By contrast, 89 ABA-accredited schools placed 10% or fewer of their graduates in those jobs, and 11 schools placed none. Half of all law schools together produced only 10% of the 7,869 new large-firm associates, while just 21 top schools produced half of them.Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement said the profession's emphasis on pedigree continues to block opportunities for capable students outside elite schools. During the pandemic, large-firm recruiting moved online, which made it easier for firms to interview students from more schools. But that change has not significantly widened the hiring pipeline. One reason is that firms are recruiting earlier, sometimes during students' first year before law school grades are available. With less law-school performance data to review, firms may lean more on undergraduate records, work experience, and the prestige of the law school itself.The article also notes that Columbia Law School had the highest percentage of 2025 graduates going to large firms, at 78%, and that most of the schools sending at least half their graduates into Big Law are also among the U.S. News “T-14.” The broader message is that recruiting technology changed, but the underlying hierarchy did not. Remote interviews may have made access to interviews easier, but they have not erased the structural advantage held by students at the most prestigious law schools.Pipeline to Big Law jobs stays narrow despite recruiting shifts | 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 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: Rodney KingOn April 29, 1992, a California jury acquitted four Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist whose assault had been captured on videotape the year before. The beating took place on March 3, 1991, after a police chase, when officers repeatedly struck King while a bystander recorded the incident from nearby. The footage became one of the most important pieces of video evidence in modern American legal history, not because it settled the matter, but because it showed how even seemingly clear evidence can be interpreted differently in a courtroom.To much of the public, the video appeared to show obvious police brutality. To the defense, it became something to be slowed down, segmented, and reframed as a series of split-second decisions by officers claiming fear and loss of control. When the jury acquitted the officers, the verdict landed in Los Angeles as a statement about far more than one criminal prosecution. For many residents, especially Black Angelenos, it confirmed the belief that the legal system was unwilling or unable to hold police accountable for violence against Black citizens.The verdict triggered several days of unrest across Los Angeles, leaving more than 60 people dead, thousands injured, and large portions of the city damaged. The case also forced the country to confront the relationship between race, policing, prosecutorial burden, and jury perception. The state-court acquittals did not end the legal story, because federal prosecutors later brought civil rights charges against the officers.In 1993, two officers, Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon, were convicted in federal court, while two others were acquitted. King also later received a civil damages award from the City of Los Angeles. April 29 remains a major date in legal history because it revealed the limits of video evidence, the difficulty of prosecuting police officers, and the deep public consequences that can follow when a courtroom verdict collides with what millions of people feel they have already seen.Purdue Pharma was sentenced in federal court in New Jersey to $5.5 billion in fines and penalties tied to its 2020 guilty plea over misconduct connected to OxyContin sales. The sentencing helps clear the path for Purdue to wind down through bankruptcy and fund a broader $7.4 billion opioid settlement. Before approving the plea deal, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo heard hours of testimony from people who described addiction, death, and family devastation connected to the opioid crisis. More than 200 victims submitted letters, and more than 40 people spoke in court.Purdue's chairman, Steve Miller, apologized directly to victims after the judge instructed him to do so. Arleo also apologized from the bench, telling victims that the government had failed them by missing opportunities to stop Purdue's conduct earlier. Many speakers said financial punishment was not enough and argued that Purdue's owners, the Sackler family, or company executives should face prison time. The judge said she could not impose jail time because the Justice Department had charged the company, not the individual owners or executives. Although the formal sentence is $5.5 billion, most of that amount will not actually be paid, with the government expected to collect $225 million if Purdue uses its remaining assets to pay creditors.The settlement includes money for governments and an $865 million fund for individuals, but many victims worry they will be excluded because they cannot produce old prescription records. Purdue says it is on track to exit bankruptcy as a new nonprofit company focused on opioid addiction treatment and overdose-reversal medicines.Purdue Pharma receives $5.5 billion sentence, paving way for opioid settlement | ReutersThe Justice Department has indicted former FBI Director James Comey over a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged as “86 47,” which prosecutors say amounted to a threat against President Donald Trump. The case was filed in federal court in North Carolina and charges Comey with threatening the president's life and transmitting a threat across state lines. Comey has said he did not intend violence, explaining that he deleted the post after learning some people interpreted the numbers that way.Trump and his allies had argued the message was a threat, with “47” referring to Trump as the 47th president and “86” being read by them as a call to remove him violently. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the indictment as a standard threat case, while critics and Comey's lawyers say it looks like a politically motivated prosecution. The Secret Service had previously looked into the post and interviewed Comey, but he was not charged at that time. One should also place the indictment in the broader context of Trump's Justice Department pursuing cases against people and groups seen as political opponents.Comey already faced a separate criminal case over alleged false testimony to Congress, but that case was dismissed after a judge found a problem with the prosecutor's appointment, and the government is appealing. Comey's lawyers are expected to argue that the new case is both retaliatory and protected by the First Amendment. The central legal fight will likely be whether the post was a “true threat” or protected political speech.Trump's DOJ indicts former FBI director James Comey over ‘86 47' post | ReutersThe Trump administration has fired all current members of the National Science Board, according to two former board members who spoke to Reuters. The board, created in 1950, helps oversee the National Science Foundation and advises both the president and Congress on science and engineering policy. It had more than 20 members, who were appointed to six-year terms, and most of them came from academia, with others from national labs, nonprofits, and private industry. Former board members Yolanda Gil and Keivan Stassun said they were told by email that their removals were effective immediately.According to Gil, all 22 current members were terminated and no explanation was given. Stassun said the move was disappointing but not surprising in light of other Trump administration actions affecting scientific research and independent federal bodies. The National Science Foundation referred questions to the White House. A White House official said the NSF's work would continue without interruption and suggested that the board's congressionally created powers may need to be updated. The firings fit into a broader pattern described by political experts as an effort by the administration to reshape independent institutions by replacing existing officials with more loyal leadership.Trump administration fires entire National Science Board | 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: Maryland Ratifies the ConstitutionOn April 28, 1788, Maryland became the seventh state to ratify the United States Constitution. The state's ratifying convention met in Annapolis from April 21 to April 28, ending with Maryland's formal approval of the new federal charter. This was a major legal step because Article VII of the Constitution required ratification by nine states before the Constitution could take effect. Maryland's vote therefore brought the country within two states of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a stronger national government.The decision also mattered because Maryland occupied an important position between northern and southern states, giving its approval broader political weight. Unlike some states where ratification debates were bitter and closely divided, Maryland approved the Constitution by a wide margin. Its delegates accepted the proposed structure of separated powers, a bicameral Congress, a single executive, and a federal judiciary. They also accepted the Constitution's grant of greater national authority, including the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, and enforce federal law. For supporters of ratification, Maryland's approval showed that the Constitution was gaining momentum beyond the earliest Federalist strongholds. For opponents, it underscored how quickly the new framework was becoming a legal and political reality.Maryland's ratification did not itself put the Constitution into force, but it helped make that outcome increasingly likely. By June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, satisfying Article VII and allowing the new constitutional government to begin. Maryland's April 28 vote thus stands as one of the key legal milestones in the transition from confederation to constitutional union.The U.S. Supreme Court formally reinstated a Texas congressional map that could help Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling made official an earlier interim decision from December, when the Court allowed Texas to use the map while the litigation continued. The map had been approved by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature in August 2025 and signed by Governor Greg Abbott.Reuters reports that the map could shift as many as five Democratic-held House seats toward Republicans. A lower court had previously blocked the map after finding that it was likely racially discriminatory and potentially violated constitutional protections. The Supreme Court reversed that lower court decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The case comes amid a broader fight over mid-decade redistricting, in which both Republican- and Democratic-led states have redrawn maps outside the usual once-a-decade cycle for partisan advantage. California, for example, was allowed by the Supreme Court in February to use a new map designed to benefit Democrats after the Texas redistricting effort. The stakes are high because Republicans hold narrow majorities in Congress, and a shift in either chamber could affect President Trump's legislative agenda and congressional oversight. The ruling does not end the larger national debate over when redistricting crosses the line from lawful political mapmaking into unconstitutional discrimination.US Supreme Court formally reinstates pro-Republican Texas voting map | ReutersThe United States has agreed to adjust its Venezuela sanctions so the Venezuelan government can pay for Nicolás Maduro's defense lawyer in his U.S. drug trafficking case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken from Caracas by U.S. special forces on January 3, brought to New York, and charged with offenses including narcoterrorism conspiracy. Both have pleaded not guilty and are being held in Brooklyn while awaiting trial. Maduro's lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, arguing that sanctions blocking Venezuela from paying legal fees interfered with Maduro's constitutional right to the lawyer of his choice. The defense said neither Maduro nor Flores could afford private counsel without Venezuelan government support. Prosecutors argued that the sanctions served national security and foreign policy interests, and that courts should not force the Treasury Department to change sanctions because foreign policy belongs mainly to the executive branch.Judge Hellerstein appeared unwilling to dismiss the case, but he also questioned whether blocking payment was justified when Maduro and Flores were already in U.S. custody and U.S.-Venezuela relations had improved after Maduro's ouster. The government's decision to allow the payments removes a procedural obstacle that could have complicated or delayed the prosecution. The case remains politically charged, with U.S. officials accusing Maduro of corruption and drug trafficking, while Maduro denies the allegations and says they are a pretext for U.S. control over Venezuela's oil resources. The dispute shows how sanctions, criminal prosecution, and constitutional criminal procedure can collide when a foreign former leader is brought into a U.S. courtroom.US to let Venezuela pay Maduro's lawyer in drug trafficking case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's potential settlement with President Donald Trump and his family over leaked tax data presents a legitimacy problem as much as a legal one. The agency may be able to resolve the case through ordinary settlement procedures, but this is not an ordinary plaintiff: Trump is the head of the executive branch that ultimately oversees the IRS. That creates a serious perception risk, because the public may view the dispute as the administration negotiating with itself. The column argues that any settlement should be tied clearly to remedies available under Section 7431 of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs civil damages for unauthorized tax disclosures. It also stresses that similarly situated taxpayers affected by the same IRS contractor's leak should be treated consistently, or at least that any differences in treatment should be publicly explained.The concern is that a major payout to Trump or his family could appear to create a two-tier tax system, even if the technical legal process is defensible. I compare the risk to the Teapot Dome scandal, where public confidence suffered because people believed insiders were benefiting from a different set of rules. The column also points to another high-profile tax leak case involving a billionaire, where the resolution focused on apology, acknowledgment of policy failures, and stronger data safeguards rather than a massive damages award. That prior case provides a useful benchmark, even though not every case must settle the same way. To protect credibility, I argue that DOJ recusal, an independent arbiter, or similar safeguards may be necessary so the process has visible independence. The larger point is that the IRS depends heavily on voluntary compliance, and voluntary compliance depends on taxpayers believing the system is fair. If the agency appears to give special treatment to the most powerful taxpayer in the country, the long-term cost may be far greater than any settlement amount. 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: Lincoln Suspends Habeas CorpusOn April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln authorized military officials to suspend the writ of habeas corpus along the rail lines between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. The order came in the opening weeks of the Civil War, when Washington was vulnerable, Union troops were moving through hostile territory, and federal officials feared sabotage and rebellion along critical transportation routes.Habeas corpus is one of the oldest protections in Anglo-American law, allowing a detained person to demand that the government justify their imprisonment before a court. By suspending it, Lincoln allowed military authorities to detain certain people without immediately producing them for judicial review. The legal problem was that the Constitution says habeas corpus may be suspended “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” but it does not clearly say which branch of government may do the suspending.Lincoln argued that the rebellion created an emergency that required swift executive action. Critics argued that the suspension power belonged to Congress, not the president, because the Suspension Clause appears in Article I, the part of the Constitution dealing mostly with legislative powers. The conflict soon came to a head in Ex parte Merryman, after John Merryman, a Maryland secessionist, was arrested by military authorities and denied ordinary habeas review.Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional authority and that only Congress could suspend the writ. Lincoln did not comply with Taney's order, maintaining that the survival of the Union justified extraordinary action. Congress later gave statutory support for wartime habeas suspension, but the controversy over Lincoln's initial action has remained central to debates over presidential power, civil liberties, and constitutional government during crisis.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Cisco Systems and the Alien Tort Statute, focusing on whether U.S. companies can face liability for allegedly helping foreign governments commit human rights abuses. The case comes from Falun Gong practitioners who claim Cisco built surveillance tools for China's “Golden Shield” program that helped officials identify, detain, torture, and persecute members of the religious movement. A federal district court dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit revived much of it in 2023, finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Cisco aided and abetted violations of international law. Cisco argues that the Ninth Circuit improperly expanded the Alien Tort Statute by recognizing aiding-and-abetting liability even though Congress did not expressly create that cause of action. The company says the ATS was originally meant to cover only a narrow set of claims, such as piracy, violations of safe conduct, and harms to ambassadors. Cisco also relies on Supreme Court precedent to argue that courts should not create secondary liability unless Congress clearly authorizes it.The Falun Gong plaintiffs respond that aiding-and-abetting liability has long been part of international law and is especially important when serious abuses require technology, infrastructure, or corporate support. They argue that torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearances, and prolonged arbitrary detention are already recognized as serious international-law violations that can support ATS claims. Business groups and the federal government warn that expanding ATS liability could chill foreign investment and interfere with U.S. foreign relations by forcing American courts to judge the conduct of foreign governments. Supporters of the plaintiffs argue that corporate accountability can discourage companies from profiting from foreign repression and can promote fair competition for businesses that follow human rights standards. The Supreme Court's ruling could shape how much legal risk U.S. companies face when selling technology or services to governments accused of human rights abuses.Justices To Focus On Alien Tort Statute In Cisco Spying CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Bayer's attempt to limit or end a large wave of lawsuits over Roundup, the weedkiller Bayer acquired when it bought Monsanto in 2018. The case involves John Durnell, a Missouri man who won a $1.25 million jury verdict after claiming years of Roundup exposure contributed to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer argues that federal pesticide law should block state-law failure-to-warn claims because the Environmental Protection Agency has approved Roundup labels without a cancer warning. The company says EPA approval shows the product was not legally “misbranded” and that Bayer could not substantially change the label without agency approval. Durnell's lawyers argue that EPA registration does not make the label immune from challenge and that Missouri warning law mirrors federal requirements rather than adding new ones.The dispute turns on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which regulates pesticide labeling and limits states from imposing requirements that differ from federal law. Bayer says more than 100,000 plaintiffs have brought Roundup-related cancer claims and that a Supreme Court win could largely end the litigation. The company has also proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve many current and future claims, though some pending appeals and excluded claims would remain outside the deal. Agricultural and crop industry groups, along with the Trump administration, support Bayer, while environmental, farmworker, and public health groups support Durnell. Bayer warns that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to keep supplying glyphosate products to farmers. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court hears Bayer's fight against Roundup lawsuits | ReutersElon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft is headed to trial in federal court in Oakland, California. Musk claims OpenAI betrayed its original nonprofit mission by creating a for-profit structure after he left the board, while using his name and early financial support to build what he calls a profit-driven enterprise. He is reportedly seeking $150 billion in damages, with money going to OpenAI's charitable arm, and also wants OpenAI returned to nonprofit status. OpenAI denies wrongdoing and argues that Musk's real motive is to regain control and help his own AI company, xAI. Microsoft also denies collusion and says its partnership with OpenAI began after Musk had left.The trial is expected to feature testimony from major tech figures, including Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Internal documents are likely to play a major role, including diary entries from Brockman that reveal tension inside OpenAI over Musk's influence and the organization's future. Musk's side points to those materials as evidence that OpenAI's leaders became focused on profit rather than the public-benefit mission. OpenAI's side says Musk knew about possible restructuring plans, wanted to be CEO, and later attacked the company after it became successful. The case comes as OpenAI faces heavy competition, major computing costs, and possible IPO plans, while Musk's xAI is also trying to compete in the AI market. The broader fight is not just about money, but about who controls one of the most influential companies in artificial intelligence.Elon Musk's trial against Sam Altman to reveal the ongoing power struggle for OpenAI | ReutersCole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old California man, is expected to appear in Washington federal court after allegedly trying to breach security at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner while President Donald Trump was present. Authorities say Allen shot at a U.S. Secret Service agent at a hotel checkpoint before being tackled and arrested. The agent was hit, but a tactical vest stopped the shot, and the agent was later released from the hospital. Formal charges had not yet been filed at the time of the report, but prosecutors said Allen is expected to face charges including assault on a federal officer and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Officials also said more serious charges, including attempted assassination, could still be considered as the investigation continues.Authorities say Allen traveled from California to Washington by train and booked a room at the Washington Hilton, where the dinner was held. They also say he left family members a manifesto referring to himself as the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and discussing plans to target senior Trump administration officials. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Trump may have been among the intended targets. The shooting disrupted the high-profile dinner, forced attendees to take cover, and led security personnel to move senior officials out of the room. Monday's court hearing is expected to be brief, with a judge advising Allen of his rights and prosecutors likely asking that he remain detained. The incident has renewed concerns about security for Trump and other public officials.Suspect in Washington dinner shooting set to appear in court | 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: Nix v. HeddenOn April 24, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court received submissions in Nix v. Hedden, the famous case asking whether a tomato should be treated as a fruit or a vegetable. The question sounds like the setup to a joke, but the legal issue was practical and financial: under the Tariff Act of 1883, imported vegetables were taxed, while fruits were not.That meant the classification of tomatoes had real consequences for importers bringing tomatoes into the United States. The plaintiffs argued that tomatoes are fruits in the botanical sense because they grow from the flower of the plant and contain seeds. The government argued that, whatever botanists might say, tomatoes were commonly bought, sold, cooked, and eaten as vegetables.The Supreme Court sided with the government. In its decision, the Court held that the tariff law should be read according to the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” not their technical scientific meanings. Justice Horace Gray explained that tomatoes are usually served with dinner, not dessert, and are understood in common speech as vegetables.The case became a lasting example of how courts interpret statutes by looking at the way language is used in everyday life. It also shows that legal disputes often turn less on abstract definitions than on context, usage, and consequences. Nix v. Hedden remains memorable because it turns a simple grocery-store question into a lesson about statutory interpretation: the tomato may be a fruit to a botanist, but for tariff law in 1893, it was a vegetable.Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged U.S. Army Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke with allegedly using classified information to profit from prediction-market bets tied to a military raid involving former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke, who was stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, allegedly helped plan and carry out the operation that resulted in Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, being brought to New York in January.Prosecutors say he began trading on Polymarket markets related to Maduro and Venezuela on Dec. 26, 2025, shortly before the Jan. 3, 2026 raid. According to the indictment, Van Dyke made more than $400,000 from those trades. The government alleges that, after making the money, he tried to hide the proceeds. He is charged with violating the Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also brought a related enforcement action against him. Van Dyke was expected to appear first in federal court in North Carolina before later appearing in the Southern District of New York. Counsel information for him was not immediately available.Soldier Aware Of Maduro Raid Bet On Polymarket, Feds Say - Law360U.S. District Judge Esther Salas warned that proposed federal data privacy legislation could undermine state laws meant to protect judges and other public officials from having their personal information exposed online. Salas has pushed for stronger privacy protections since 2020, when a lawyer went to her New Jersey home and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. Congress later passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which shields federal judges' personal information online. Since then, more than a dozen states, including New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, have adopted similar protections for state judges, and some laws also cover law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and family members.Salas raised her concerns at an American Bar Association conference in Boston as House lawmakers consider federal privacy bills that would create national standards and preempt state laws. The bills, called the GUARD Financial Data Act and the SECURE Data Act, would require covered companies to limit collection of consumer data and give people rights to access or delete their information. But unlike New Jersey's Daniel's Law, the federal proposals would not let individuals sue companies for privacy violations. Salas said replacing stronger state protections with weaker federal rules could put judges across the country at greater risk. House committee representatives either declined to comment or did not respond.NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws | ReutersSpirit Aviation told a New York bankruptcy judge that it is in advanced talks with the federal government over a major financing package that could help keep its second Chapter 11 case on track. The airline's lawyer, Marshall Huebner of Davis Polk, confirmed that negotiations are underway but did not verify reports about the possible size of the package or whether the government would receive an ownership stake. He said the proposed funding could do more than simply support the bankruptcy case and could position Spirit to compete strongly after restructuring. Spirit plans to seek court approval of the financing on April 30.The financing discussions come after the war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran caused jet fuel prices to rise sharply, disrupting Spirit's existing reorganization plan. The airline had previously proposed canceling general unsecured claims and restructuring around support from secured noteholders, but it postponed seeking approval to send that plan to creditors. Judge Sean Lane approved a $533 million sale of about 20 aircraft to CSDS Aircraft and also granted Spirit a 90-day extension of its exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan. Spirit also disclosed that it missed an interest payment, triggering a default under its debtor-in-possession loan. The noteholder group funding much of that loan said it intends to enforce its rights and would oppose any relief that harms the lenders.Spirit In ‘Advanced' Talks With Gov't For Ch. 11 Financing - Law360 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: Sirhan Sirhan SentencedOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a crime that had shaken the United States the previous year. The sentencing came after a highly publicized trial in Los Angeles, where prosecutors argued that the killing was deliberate and politically motivated. Evidence presented at trial included eyewitness accounts placing Sirhan at the scene and actively firing the fatal shots. His own recorded statements, which expressed hostility toward Kennedy, played a key role in establishing intent. The defense raised questions about Sirhan's mental state, but these arguments did not overcome the prosecution's narrative of premeditation.The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to the imposition of the death penalty under California law at the time. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the broader national trauma surrounding political assassinations in the 1960s. However, the legal status of capital punishment in California soon shifted dramatically. In 1972, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson, which held that the death penalty as then applied violated the state constitution. As a result, Sirhan's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, aligning his case with others affected by the ruling.The Sirhan case remains significant in legal history for its intersection with issues of political violence and criminal accountability. It also illustrates how broader constitutional developments can reshape individual sentences long after a trial concludes. Debates about his culpability and mental state have persisted, raising ongoing questions about the standards for criminal responsibility. At the same time, the case is frequently cited in discussions about the fairness and consistency of the death penalty. It stands as a reminder of how legal systems respond to acts that carry both criminal and profound national consequences.Anthropic has asked a federal court in California to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by major music publishers, including Universal Music Group, over the use of song lyrics to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The company argues that its use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as “fair use” because it is transformative, meaning the material was used to help the AI understand language rather than to reproduce songs. Anthropic claims this kind of use supports innovation across fields like science, business, and education.The publishers, including Concord and ABKCO, disagree and argue that the AI system can generate outputs that resemble or compete with their lyrics, potentially harming the market for original works. They originally filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Anthropic copied lyrics from hundreds of songs by well-known artists without permission. This dispute is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against AI companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, over how training data is used.Anthropic is seeking summary judgment, which would allow it to win the case without a full trial if the judge agrees that its actions were legally protected fair use. The outcome could be highly influential, as courts are currently split on whether AI training on copyrighted material is permissible. The company also emphasizes that copyright law is intended to benefit the public by encouraging innovation, not just to compensate creators.At the center of the case is a key legal question: whether copying large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems can be considered transformative use under copyright law. This issue is likely to shape future rulings as similar cases continue to move through the courts.Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Labor has introduced a proposed rule to clarify when multiple employers can be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. The rule, titled Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, is designed to create a clearer and more consistent standard across federal law. Officials say the goal is to resolve conflicting interpretations among federal courts and make compliance easier for businesses.According to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, the proposal aims to both simplify regulations for employers and strengthen protections for workers. The rule would mark the agency's first formal guidance on joint employment since the prior regulation from an earlier administration was rescinded without replacement. Unlike that earlier version, the new proposal would apply to multiple statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.The Department believes a uniform standard will reduce confusion, encourage better business practices, and ensure workers can recover wages or benefits even if one employer fails to pay. Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers emphasized that clearer rules can improve enforcement and reduce litigation.The proposal is currently open for public comment through June 22 and follows earlier signals that the agency planned to revisit joint employer standards.BREAKING: DOL Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal - Law360The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may side with the Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over how the agency issues fines to wireless carriers. The case involves major companies like Verizon Communications and AT&T, which argued that the FCC's internal enforcement process violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. The fines stem from findings that the companies failed to properly protect customer location data, resulting in penalties totaling over $100 million.During oral arguments, several justices expressed doubt about the companies' claims, suggesting that the FCC's forfeiture orders are not final or binding unless enforced in court. This distinction appeared central, as it implies companies still have the option to challenge the penalties before a judge and jury. Justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, compared the process to a legal choice—either accept the penalty or contest it through litigation.Some members of the Court, however, raised concerns about whether companies may feel pressured to comply due to uncertainty or reputational harm. John Roberts suggested the issue might be more about public perception than a direct legal burden, while Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the FCC had been fully clear about the non-binding nature of its orders.The dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of federal agency power, especially following a 2024 decision limiting enforcement proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite that precedent, the justices did not appear ready to apply the same reasoning to the FCC's system. Lower courts had previously split on the issue, prompting Supreme Court review.A final decision is expected by late June and could clarify how far federal agencies can go in using internal processes to impose financial penalties.US Supreme Court leans toward FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines | 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 Nixon DiesOn April 22, 1994, Richard Nixon died at the age of 81, marking the end of a presidency that left a lasting imprint on American legal history. Nixon's legacy is inseparable from the Watergate scandal, a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of presidential power. The scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and expanded into a wide-ranging investigation of abuse of executive authority. As evidence mounted, legal battles emerged over whether a sitting president could withhold information under claims of executive privilege.The issue came to a head in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, where the Court unanimously ruled that the president must comply with a subpoena to release tape recordings. This decision significantly narrowed the scope of executive privilege, establishing that it is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. The ruling reinforced the principle that even the president is subject to the rule of law. Facing near-certain impeachment, Nixon resigned in August 1974, becoming the first U.S. president to do so.His resignation demonstrated the strength of constitutional checks and balances, particularly Congress's oversight authority and the judiciary's role in resolving disputes over executive power. In the years that followed, Watergate prompted reforms such as the War Powers Resolution and amendments to campaign finance laws. Legal scholars continue to cite the episode as a defining moment in the development of accountability for high-ranking officials. Nixon's death in 1994 closed a chapter, but the legal principles shaped during Watergate remain central to debates over presidential authority.West Virginia reached an $11 million settlement with Roblox to address concerns about child safety on the platform. The agreement follows a nine-month investigation led by Attorney General JB McCuskey, which found that existing safeguards exposed children to explicit content and potential predators. As part of the deal, Roblox must implement mandatory age verification before users can access chat features, aiming to reduce anonymous misuse. The platform will also restrict adults from contacting users under 16 unless they are verified trusted connections. Additional protections include default safe-content settings for minors and alerts when young users enter private chats for the first time.The settlement allocates funds over several years, including money for public safety campaigns, internet safety specialists, and educational workshops. Roblox stated that the agreement aligns with its broader goal of improving digital safety and collaborating with regulators. This deal comes amid similar actions by other states, including a recent agreement in Nevada with comparable age verification measures. Multiple lawsuits across the country accuse Roblox of failing to prevent adults from exploiting minors on the platform. Many of these cases have been consolidated in federal court in California, where plaintiffs allege harm resulting from online grooming.W.Va. Strikes $11.5M Deal With Roblox Over Kid Safety - Law360A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, overturning a lower court order that had blocked the law. The decision upheld Texas Senate Bill 10, finding that the requirement does not violate the Constitution's protections against government establishment of religion or its guarantees of religious freedom. The majority reasoned that the law does not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs or interfere with how individuals practice their faith.The challenge was brought by families from various religious and nonreligious backgrounds, who argued that the mandate infringes on their right to control their children's religious upbringing. Their attorney indicated plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the decision, calling it a victory for the state and emphasizing the historical influence of the Ten Commandments.The ruling was not unanimous, with a strong dissent arguing that the court ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. The dissent pointed to a 1980 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar Kentucky law, suggesting the Texas measure should also be unconstitutional. By reversing the earlier injunction, the appeals court cleared the way for the law to take effect while further appeals are expected.Texas can require Ten Commandments in classrooms, US appeals court rules | ReutersLabor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down from her role in U.S. Department of Labor amid controversy tied to an internal watchdog investigation into alleged misconduct. The probe reportedly examined claims of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, along with other workplace concerns, though some allegations were publicly disputed. Her departure follows weeks of media coverage and discussion during a congressional oversight hearing.The White House announced that Chavez-DeRemer will move to a private-sector position, while Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling will serve as acting head of the agency. In public statements, Chavez-DeRemer highlighted her efforts to support workers, expand job training, and address economic issues during her tenure, while administration officials praised her leadership.The situation also involved broader personnel disruptions, including reports that several aides were placed on leave or left their positions. Additional complaints and allegations—some denied or unproven—contributed to scrutiny surrounding her leadership. Her husband was also investigated over separate allegations, though no charges were filed.Chavez-DeRemer's exit adds to other recent Cabinet-level departures during Donald Trump's administration. Lawmakers, including Representative Rosa DeLauro, criticized the situation as a leadership failure and called for a replacement focused on the department's mission. Observers noted that Sonderling could be a leading candidate for the permanent role, though no official nomination has been announced.Trump's Labor Secretary Steps Down - Law360A federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that a nearly 160-year-old ban on home distilling is constitutional, deepening a disagreement with another appellate court. The court said the prohibition is a valid way for Congress to ensure collection of excise taxes on distilled spirits, reasoning that allowing home production could lead to widespread tax evasion. The case was brought by John Ream, who wanted to distill whiskey at home for personal use.The ruling comes shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, finding the same law unnecessary and unconstitutional. This disagreement between appellate courts—known as a circuit split—raises the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will step in to resolve the issue. Ream's legal team has already indicated plans to appeal.The law at issue dates back to 1868, when Congress enacted it during Reconstruction to combat liquor tax evasion. Violations can carry significant penalties, including prison time and fines. In upholding the ban, the majority opinion emphasized Congress's longstanding rationale that prohibiting home distilling encourages consumers to buy taxed alcohol instead. A dissenting judge, however, argued the case should not proceed because Ream failed to show he faced a real risk of prosecution.US appeals court calls 158-year-old home distilling ban constitutional, creates split | 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: John Adams Sworn in as VPOn April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution's text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams's swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation's governing document.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court's full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant's actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court's decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla's U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs' Challenge - Law360My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven't yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don't act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house's winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don't fit that structure, because they don't generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way. 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: Columbine ShootingOn April 20, 1999, a mass shooting at Columbine High School became one of the most consequential events in modern American legal history. Two students carried out a planned attack that resulted in the deaths of 13 people and injured many others, shocking the nation and prompting immediate legal scrutiny. In the aftermath, victims' families filed multiple lawsuits against the Jefferson County School District, arguing that officials failed to act on warning signs and threats. These claims raised difficult questions about foreseeability and the extent of a school's duty to protect students from third-party violence. Courts examining these cases often had to balance negligence standards against doctrines like governmental immunity, which can shield public entities from liability.The tragedy also intensified national debate over gun control laws, particularly regarding background checks and access to firearms by minors. Legal discussions extended to the role of parents, as some lawsuits attempted to hold the shooters' families accountable for failing to secure weapons. Additionally, Columbine influenced how courts and policymakers viewed threats made by students, contributing to stricter enforcement and zero-tolerance policies in schools. The event led to expanded use of security measures such as surveillance, school resource officers, and emergency preparedness protocols.Columbine's legal legacy can be seen in later case law addressing school liability and student safety, where courts often referenced the limits of institutional responsibility. It also shaped legislative efforts at both the state and federal levels aimed at preventing school violence. The case highlighted the challenges of proving causation in negligence claims involving unpredictable criminal acts. Over time, it became a foundational example in discussions of tort law, particularly in cases involving public institutions and risk prevention.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider the scope of the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to seek “disgorgement,” a remedy that forces wrongdoers to give up profits obtained through illegal conduct. The case arises from a challenge by Ongkaruck Sripetch, who was ordered to repay more than $3 million tied to a fraudulent stock scheme. Although the SEC's general ability to pursue disgorgement is well established and supported by Congress, the dispute focuses on whether the agency must prove that investors suffered actual financial harm before recovering those profits.Sripetch argues that the SEC failed to show his actions caused investors measurable losses, and therefore should not be entitled to the repayment order. The federal government, defending the SEC, maintains that disgorgement is meant to strip unlawful gains from violators rather than compensate victims, making proof of financial harm unnecessary. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sided with the SEC's broader interpretation of its authority. However, other appellate courts have disagreed, creating a legal split that prompted Supreme Court review.The case highlights the significance of disgorgement as one of the SEC's primary enforcement tools, with billions of dollars recovered in recent years under different administrations. The outcome could clarify the limits of the agency's power and reshape how securities fraud penalties are pursued, particularly in cases where direct financial harm to victims is difficult to quantify.US Supreme Court to consider SEC's ‘disgorgement' power | ReutersAmerican Airlines publicly denied reports that it is considering a merger with United Airlines, stating that no discussions are taking place and that it has no interest in pursuing such a deal. The denial followed speculation that United's CEO had raised the idea during a recent meeting with federal officials. American emphasized that a merger between the two major carriers would likely harm competition and consumers, signaling concerns about antitrust implications in an already concentrated airline market.The company also suggested that such a combination would conflict with broader regulatory principles aimed at preserving competition. Instead of pursuing a merger, American stated it will remain focused on its own long-term strategy and operations. United did not comment on the reports.While a deal between the two largest airlines appears off the table, smaller industry transactions are still moving forward. Allegiant Travel Company is proceeding with its acquisition of Sun Country Airlines after receiving regulatory approval to operate both carriers separately under shared ownership. Similarly, Alaska Airlines previously completed its purchase of Hawaiian Airlines in 2024 with government approval. These developments highlight that, despite scrutiny of large mergers, regulators are still permitting consolidation among smaller airlines under certain conditions.American Airlines Shuts Down United Merger Rumors - Law360Lawyers for Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service are negotiating a potential settlement in Trump's $10 billion lawsuit over the leak of his tax returns. The parties have asked a federal court to pause the case for 90 days to allow negotiations, suggesting a resolution could avoid extended litigation. The lawsuit stems from disclosures made by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who leaked Trump's tax information and data on other wealthy individuals to media outlets.Trump and co-plaintiffs, including his business entities and family members, claim the leak caused financial damage and reputational harm. Littlejohn pleaded guilty to unlawful disclosure and was sentenced to prison, establishing the underlying misconduct. A settlement could raise complex issues because Trump, as president, is effectively suing a federal agency within the executive branch, creating potential conflicts for government lawyers representing the IRS.The case also carries financial implications, as any settlement payout would likely come from public funds. Beyond this dispute, Trump has pursued several other high-value lawsuits against media organizations, reflecting a broader legal strategy tied to alleged reputational and political harm.Trump, IRS in talks to settle US president's $10 billion lawsuit | 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: Bay of PigsApril 17 has marked several important moments in legal history, particularly in the development of constitutional law, civil rights, and international justice. One notable event occurred in 1961, when the Bay of Pigs Invasion began, raising serious legal debates about executive war powers in the United States. Although primarily a military operation, it prompted scrutiny over presidential authority to engage in covert foreign interventions without explicit congressional approval. The failed invasion quickly became a focal point for constitutional scholars questioning the limits of executive power. At the time, the U.S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to declare war, yet presidents increasingly relied on covert or limited military actions without formal declarations. This tension highlighted a growing gap between constitutional text and modern geopolitical practice.Legal analysts began to examine whether such actions fell within the president's role as Commander in Chief or exceeded constitutional boundaries. The episode also contributed to broader concerns about secrecy and accountability within the executive branch. In the years that followed, these concerns helped shape legislative responses aimed at reasserting congressional authority. Most notably, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit unilateral military engagements by the president. The law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and limits the duration of such deployments without approval. While debated and sometimes contested, it reflects an ongoing effort to balance executive flexibility with legislative oversight.The legal legacy of April 17, 1961, therefore lies not only in the event itself but in the constitutional questions it intensified. These debates continue to influence how courts, lawmakers, and scholars interpret the separation of powers in matters of war and foreign policy.The head of the U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration, Daniel Aronowitz, faced extended questioning from House Democrats during an oversight hearing focused on both agency policy and leadership conduct. Lawmakers pressed him about allegations involving Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, including reports of an inspector general investigation into alleged workplace misconduct and claims of a hostile work environment. Representative Mark Takano challenged Aronowitz on his awareness of these reports, but Aronowitz stated he was unfamiliar with them and defended the secretary's professionalism.Democrats also questioned the department's recent shift in enforcing mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans. Representative Donald Norcross asked why the agency appeared to step back from stricter enforcement under the current administration. Aronowitz responded by emphasizing his personal experience with insurance denials for mental health treatment, arguing that the agency remains committed to removing barriers to care. He noted, however, that he could not discuss certain regulatory details due to ongoing litigation.Aronowitz further explained that the agency has elevated mental health access as a top priority, even as it reevaluates specific enforcement strategies. His remarks drew support from Representative Mark DeSaulnier, who praised his openness about personal experiences with behavioral health issues.DOL Benefits Chief Pressed On Labor Secretary's Conduct - Law360Hundreds of legal academics, students, and professional organizations are urging the American Bar Association to keep its law school diversity requirement as it considers eliminating the rule. During a public comment period, the ABA received dozens of submissions supporting the standard and only a small number favoring its repeal. The rule requires accredited law schools to show a commitment to diversity in areas like admissions, hiring, and student programs.Supporters argue the requirement is important for improving representation in the legal profession, which remains less diverse than the broader U.S. population. They also contend the rule does not mandate unlawful discrimination but instead promotes inclusion. Some critics, however, claim the standard encourages improper consideration of race and detracts from other priorities, such as academic preparation.The debate comes amid broader political pressure, including actions by the Trump administration challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. An executive order has even called into question the ABA's role as the official accreditor of U.S. law schools.The ABA had already suspended the diversity rule earlier in 2025, citing legal uncertainty at both state and federal levels. Its governing council is expected to decide whether to permanently eliminate the requirement at an upcoming meeting.Law professors defend ABA's law school diversity rule ahead of elimination vote | ReutersQVC Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Texas with a prepackaged restructuring plan aimed at reducing about 80% of its $6.6 billion debt. The company expects to cut its debt down to roughly $1.3 billion and emerge from bankruptcy within about 90 days. The filing includes more than 70 affiliated entities, though most international operations are excluded.The restructuring follows ongoing financial struggles driven by declining cable television viewership, weak consumer demand, and external pressures like tariffs. Despite efforts to modernize—such as launching live shopping on social media platforms and targeting new customer demographics—the company has been unable to return to sustained growth.Historically, QVC and its subsidiary HSN were pioneers in televised retail, but shifting consumer habits toward e-commerce have eroded their traditional business model. In recent years, the company has taken cost-cutting steps, including layoffs affecting over 1,000 employees and consolidating operations.Financial strain intensified as revenue continued to decline and credit ratings dropped deeper into non-investment-grade territory. With billions in outstanding obligations, including loans nearing maturity, the company pursued a restructuring agreement with lenders to stabilize its finances.Under the Chapter 11 plan, creditors will exchange existing debt for new debt or equity, while vendors and suppliers are expected to be paid in full to maintain operations. The company also plans to continue business as usual during the restructuring process, supported by over $1 billion in available cash.QVC Hits Ch. 11 With Prepackaged Plan To Slash $6.6B Debt - Law360 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: Texas City DisasterOn April 16, 1947, a catastrophic industrial disaster struck Texas City, Texas, when a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate exploded, killing nearly 600 people and injuring thousands more. The blast devastated the surrounding area, leveling buildings and igniting fires that burned for days. In the aftermath, victims and their families turned to the courts, seeking accountability from the federal government for its role in overseeing the shipment and handling of the hazardous material. Their claims were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a relatively new law at the time that allowed private citizens to sue the government for certain negligent acts.The resulting litigation eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Dalehite v. United States, a case that would shape the boundaries of government liability for decades. Plaintiffs argued that federal officials had been negligent in the planning and execution of the fertilizer export program that led to the explosion. The government, however, maintained that its actions involved policy decisions protected from liability. In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding that the challenged conduct fell within the “discretionary function” exception of the statute. This exception shields the government from lawsuits based on decisions grounded in public policy considerations.The Court's ruling effectively barred recovery for many victims, drawing criticism for limiting access to remedies in cases of large-scale harm. At the same time, the decision established an enduring legal principle: not all government actions, even if harmful, are subject to judicial review through tort claims. The case has since been cited frequently in disputes involving regulatory decisions, disaster response, and federal oversight. Its legacy continues to influence how courts distinguish between operational negligence and protected policy judgment.A Manhattan federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the concert ticketing market. Jurors concluded that the companies controlled primary ticketing services for major venues and used exclusionary tactics to limit competition. One key finding was that Live Nation tied access to its large amphitheaters to the use of its promotional services, restricting competitors. The jury also determined that this conduct harmed competition across dozens of states and led to measurable overcharges for some consumers.The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states and originally included the U.S. Department of Justice, which settled during the trial. That settlement proposed structural changes, including making Ticketmaster's technology available to rivals and limiting certain exclusive venue agreements. It also included a financial component, though many states rejected the deal and continued litigating. The jury ultimately found violations of multiple state laws and confirmed anticompetitive effects in the live entertainment industry.Despite the verdict, key issues remain unresolved, including how much damages the companies will owe and whether structural remedies—such as forcing a sale of Ticketmaster—will be imposed. Live Nation has indicated it will challenge the ruling and pursue post-trial motions and appeals. The case is significant because it addresses how vertical integration across ticketing, promotion, and venues can influence market power.Jury Finds Live Nation Monopolized Concert Ticketing - Law360Freedom Forever, a California-based home solar installer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware with more than $500 million in debt. The company reported liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion, compared to assets estimated between $100 million and $500 million. Among its largest creditors are affiliates of Mosaic, which are owed about $114 million in unsecured claims.Founded in 2011, Freedom Forever has completed over 150,000 residential solar installations across 32 states and employs roughly 3,000 workers. Its bankruptcy comes amid broader financial strain in the home solar industry, where several companies have recently filed for Chapter 11. Industry-wide challenges include declining demand driven by higher interest rates, which make financing solar projects more expensive, and the expiration of a key federal tax credit for residential solar installations.Other major solar companies, including SunPower and Sunnova, have also faced financial distress in recent years. The case highlights ongoing instability in the residential solar sector as companies struggle with shifting economic conditions.Solar Co. Freedom Forever Hits Ch. 11 With Over $500M Debt - Law360John Eastman, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, was disbarred by the California Supreme Court for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The decision followed earlier findings by the State Bar of California that he violated professional ethics rules by making false statements and misleading courts. Although the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it upheld conclusions that his legal arguments lacked factual and legal support.Eastman had promoted theories that then–Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify certain electoral votes, a position Pence rejected as unconstitutional. He also filed unsuccessful litigation seeking to invalidate election results in multiple states and spoke at the rally preceding the January 6 Capitol attack. These actions were central to the findings that he breached his duty of honesty and undermined the legal system.Eastman plans to appeal the disbarment to the U.S. Supreme Court and has pleaded not guilty to related criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia, some of which have since been dropped. The ruling underscores that attorneys can face severe professional consequences for advancing unsupported legal claims, particularly in matters affecting democratic processes. At the same time, disbarment is a professional penalty rather than a criminal one, meaning Eastman is facing significantly less severe consequences than individuals in past attempts to overturn the government—such as participants in the Confederacy—who were met with far harsher legal and historical repercussions.Trump ally John Eastman is disbarred over bid to overturn 2020 election | 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: McDonald's Franchise OpeningOn this day in 1955, Ray Kroc opened his first franchise location for McDonald's in Des Plaines, Illinois, marking a turning point in American business and legal history. Although franchising existed before this moment, Kroc's model introduced a new level of uniformity and control that reshaped how franchise systems operate. He required strict adherence to standardized procedures, branding, and product quality, which became central features of modern franchise agreements. These agreements are legally binding contracts that define the relationship between franchisors and franchisees, including fees, territorial rights, and operational obligations. As McDonald's expanded rapidly, it exposed gaps in existing business laws governing franchising practices. This growth led to increased scrutiny over issues such as disclosure requirements and fairness in contract terms.By the 1970s, concerns about deceptive practices and unequal bargaining power prompted regulatory responses, including the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule. This rule requires franchisors to provide detailed disclosures to prospective franchisees, improving transparency and reducing fraud. Kroc's model also raised legal questions about liability, particularly whether franchisors could be held responsible for the actions of independently owned franchise locations. Courts have since developed tests to determine the level of control necessary to establish such liability. Additionally, franchise law has evolved to address disputes over termination rights and non-compete clauses. The McDonald's system became a case study in how private contracts can shape an entire industry's legal framework. Today, franchising remains a major part of the global economy, with legal standards that can be traced back to the system Kroc helped popularize.The NAACP filed a lawsuit against xAI in federal court in Mississippi, alleging that the company violated environmental laws while operating a gas-powered plant tied to its data center near Memphis. The complaint claims xAI built and ran the plant without obtaining required permits under the Clean Air Act. According to the NAACP, the plant emits harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and formaldehyde, which are linked to serious health risks including asthma, heart conditions, and cancer. The organization argues that these emissions disproportionately affect nearby communities with large Black populations.The lawsuit also alleges that xAI deliberately avoided regulatory oversight by skipping the permitting process, which would have required pollution controls and environmental review. The plant is described as a major regional source of smog-forming emissions, potentially releasing large quantities of pollutants into the air. The NAACP is seeking court orders to halt operations until proper permits are obtained, require emission controls, and impose financial penalties for violations. The case reflects broader concerns about environmental justice, corporate compliance, and the rapid expansion of infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence technologies.NAACP Sues Musk's XAI Over Data Center Pollution In Miss. - Law360Albertsons has agreed in principle to pay $773 million to resolve claims brought by several states, local governments, and Native American tribes over its alleged role in the opioid crisis. The agreement involves attorneys general from states including California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, though some terms—such as requirements for future conduct—are still being negotiated. The states claim the company contributed to the public health crisis through its pharmacy operations, while Albertsons maintains the settlement does not admit wrongdoing.This deal is part of a broader wave of opioid-related litigation targeting companies across the pharmaceutical supply chain. Governments have accused pharmacies, distributors, and manufacturers of contributing to widespread addiction through improper practices. Other major settlements, including those involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, have pushed total payouts in opioid cases beyond $50 billion nationwide.Funds from the Albertsons settlement are expected to support addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery programs, with allocation plans already in place in some states. Officials emphasized that these settlements aim to both address past harm and fund ongoing efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.State AGs, Albertsons Chain Reach $773M Opioid Deal - Law360Amazon has agreed to acquire Globalstar for about $11.6 billion as part of its push into satellite-based internet services. The deal will give Amazon access to Globalstar's satellite network, spectrum rights, and infrastructure, helping expand its low Earth orbit (LEO) system aimed at providing global connectivity without relying on traditional cell towers.Under the agreement, Globalstar shareholders can receive either cash or Amazon stock, with the total deal value capped at $90 per share. A majority of Globalstar shareholders have already approved the transaction, but it still requires regulatory clearance and fulfillment of certain operational conditions before closing, which is slotted for 2027.The acquisition positions Amazon to compete more directly in the growing satellite internet market, where companies like SpaceX's Starlink currently dominate. Globalstar's existing technology and planned satellite upgrades are expected to strengthen Amazon's ability to deliver direct-to-device connectivity worldwide. The deal also ties into Amazon's partnership with Apple, supporting satellite features on devices like iPhones and Apple Watches.Paul Weiss, Skadden Lead Amazon's $11.6B Globalstar Deal - Law360A law student at Texas Tech University has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the school violated her First Amendment rights by disciplining her over comments about the killing of Charlie Kirk. The student, Ellen Fisher, alleges she was unfairly singled out for punishment while other students who discussed the same topic were not disciplined. She received a written reprimand, which she argues could negatively affect her ability to become a licensed attorney.Fisher maintains that her statements were part of normal academic discussion and did not celebrate Kirk's death, despite claims from at least one witness. She also argues the university's investigation was flawed because it ignored testimony supporting her version of events. The university concluded her remarks could have been perceived as celebratory and violated professional conduct standards.The lawsuit seeks to block the disciplinary action, obtain damages, and secure a ruling that the university infringed on her constitutional free speech rights. The case comes amid broader national debates over campus speech and how universities respond to controversial or sensitive political discussions.Texas law student sues to stop sanctions over Charlie Kirk comments | 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: Lincoln is Shot at Ford's TheatreOn April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre by John Wilkes Booth, an act that would alter the trajectory of Reconstruction and American legal history. Lincoln's life story makes the moment even more striking: born in poverty in a Kentucky log cabin, largely self-educated, and rising through persistence rather than privilege, he embodied a form of democratic possibility rare among world leaders. Over time, his legal and political thinking evolved in meaningful ways, particularly on questions of equality and civil rights. While early in his career he held more limited views, the Civil War years reshaped his outlook, pushing him toward support for Black suffrage and, by some accounts, openness to broader enfranchisement, including for women.Frederick Douglass, who met with Lincoln during the war, captured this complexity well, noting that Lincoln was “preeminently the white man's President,” yet also “the first to show any respect for the rights of the black man.” Douglass emphasized that Lincoln's greatness lay not in perfection, but in growth—his capacity to move, under pressure and moral reflection, toward justice. By April 1865, Lincoln was publicly advocating limited Black voting rights, particularly for Black soldiers and educated men, a position that suggested further expansion might follow in his second term.That possibility was cut short on the night of April 14, when Booth entered the presidential box during a performance and fired a single shot at close range. Lincoln died the following morning, and with him vanished a moderating but increasingly progressive force in Reconstruction policy. In the years that followed, many of the shortcomings we associate with Reconstruction—including the narrowing of federal protections seen in cases like United States v. Cruikshank—took hold in a political environment Lincoln never had the chance to shape. His assassination opened the door to a more fractured and often less protective approach to civil rights enforcement.A little-known but striking footnote to this story involves Edwin Booth, the brother of Lincoln's assassin, who months earlier had unknowingly saved the life of the president's son, Robert Todd Lincoln. At a crowded train platform in Jersey City, Robert slipped and fell between the train and the platform just as the car began to move. Edwin Booth, standing nearby, quickly grabbed him by the collar and pulled him to safety, preventing what could have been a fatal accident. The two men did not recognize each other at the time, and Booth only later learned whose life he had saved. The incident has since taken on a symbolic quality in legal and historical writing, illustrating the strange intersections of fate surrounding the Lincoln family in the days leading up to April 1865.Legally and historically, April 14 stands as a hinge moment: not only the loss of a president, but the loss of a developing constitutional vision. Lincoln's trajectory suggests that Reconstruction might have unfolded differently under his continued leadership, particularly on voting rights and federal protection of equality. Douglass later reflected that Lincoln's legacy should be judged not by where he began, but by how far he traveled. That journey—from humble origins to an evolving commitment to equality—remains central to understanding both the promise and the unfinished work of American law.After his death, Abraham Lincoln's body was carried on a funeral train that retraced, in reverse, the route he had taken to Washington as president-elect in 1861, passing through many of the same stations and drawing massive crowds at every stop. The train's journey from Washington, D.C. to Springfield became a rolling national mourning, with citizens lining the tracks to pay their respects to the fallen leader. In a deeply symbolic sense, the trip marked the completion of Lincoln's final journey—returning him to the place where his political life had taken root, even as the nation he led struggled to carry forward the work he unwittingly left unfinished.President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate Matthew Schwartz, his personal lawyer in the New York hush money case, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schwartz is a longtime partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and joined Trump's legal team in 2025 to handle the appeal after prior attorneys moved into government roles. Trump praised Schwartz as a strong opponent of government overreach and highlighted his experience in high-level federal and state litigation. In addition to the criminal appeal, Schwartz is also representing Trump in a civil fraud case brought by Letitia James, where his team recently urged the state's highest court to dismiss the claims as politically motivated. Schwartz previously clerked for Samuel Alito and worked at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, and he is a graduate of Columbia Law School.Trump Taps Personal Attorney for Second CircuitAn Illinois jury in Cook County added $17 million in punitive damages to an earlier $53 million award against Abbott Laboratories in a case brought by four mothers whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed the company's formula. The jury previously found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims including failure to warn, negligence, and product defect, awarding individual damages based on the harm suffered by each child, all of whom survived but face lasting health complications.Plaintiffs argued they were not informed of the risks associated with the formula and would have made different feeding decisions had they known. Abbott disputed liability, maintaining that its products are safe and that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between its formula and the condition, and said it plans to appeal. The trial judge allowed punitive damages after finding evidence the company may have withheld risk information, and also criticized testimony suggesting mothers should not be told about such risks. The case is part of broader, ongoing litigation over infant formula, with mixed outcomes in courts across the country.Ill. Jury Adds $17M Punitive Award To Baby Formula Verdict - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that new IRS guidance on opportunity zones largely revives the original program from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without addressing its core flaws—and may even worsen them. While the framework still aims to direct private capital into distressed communities through tax incentives, the updated rules expand where zones can be drawn and lower investment thresholds, particularly in rural areas. In practice, that means more projects will qualify, but fewer are likely to deliver the kind of transformative impact the policy was designed to achieve.The first iteration showed that investment tended to flow toward already developing areas with stronger returns, not the communities most in need, and the new guidance does little to change that incentive structure. Governors retain broad discretion in selecting zones, a feature that previously led to politically influenced designations rather than data-driven ones. By easing standards like the “substantial improvement” requirement, the revised rules make it easier for incremental upgrades—not meaningful redevelopment—to receive tax benefits. As a result, the program risks continuing to function more as a subsidy for already viable projects than as a tool for economic revitalization. I suggest that a more effective approach would tie both zone designation and tax benefits to measurable outcomes like housing growth, job creation, or business investment, while reducing discretionary selection in favor of objective economic criteria. 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: Colfax MassacreOn April 13, 1873, one of the most violent and legally significant event of the Reconstruction era unfolded in Louisiana with the Colfax Massacre. The conflict arose from a disputed gubernatorial election, as competing groups claimed control of local government in Grant Parish. Black citizens, many of them formerly enslaved, gathered at the courthouse in Colfax to defend the Republican-backed election outcome. White supremacist militias, determined to overturn Reconstruction governments, attacked the courthouse with overwhelming force. By the end of the confrontation, dozens of Black men had been killed, many after surrendering, making it one of the deadliest incidents of racial violence during Reconstruction.In the aftermath, federal prosecutors sought to hold members of the attacking group accountable under the Enforcement Acts, which were designed to protect the civil rights of newly freed citizens. These prosecutions led to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Cruikshank. The Court ultimately overturned the convictions, ruling that the federal government's authority to prosecute such crimes was limited. It held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state actions, not the conduct of private individuals. This interpretation sharply narrowed the scope of federal power to intervene in cases of racial violence and civil rights violations.The decision effectively left Black citizens in the South vulnerable to attacks by private groups, as state authorities were often unwilling to prosecute perpetrators. It also signaled a broader retreat from Reconstruction policies, undermining efforts to enforce equality through federal law. For decades, this ruling stood as a major barrier to civil rights enforcement, shaping the legal landscape well into the twentieth century. The legacy of Colfax and Cruikshank illustrates how judicial interpretation can either strengthen or weaken constitutional protections, particularly during periods of social and political upheaval.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a new initiative aimed at investigating so-called “birth tourism” networks. These are groups that allegedly help pregnant foreign nationals enter the United States on temporary visas with the goal of giving birth so their children obtain U.S. citizenship. The effort is part of a broader immigration crackdown under President Donald Trump's administration, which has emphasized stricter controls on both legal and illegal immigration.An internal ICE directive instructs agents to identify fraud and organized operations that may be facilitating these activities. While giving birth in the U.S. is not illegal, authorities are focusing on potential misuse of visas and false statements in applications. A 2020 regulation already bars individuals from using tourist visas primarily for the purpose of securing citizenship for a child, meaning violations could lead to fraud charges.The administration has also used birth tourism as a justification for attempting to limit birthright citizenship, a right grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump issued an executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, but multiple courts have blocked the policy, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court. Government lawyers argue that birthright citizenship has encouraged an industry built around these practices, though data suggests such cases represent only a small fraction of total U.S. births.ICE's initiative will focus on uncovering fraud and dismantling organized networks, similar to past prosecutions involving “birth houses” that catered to foreign clients. However, the overall scale of birth tourism remains unclear, and officials have not indicated how many cases they expect to pursue.Exclusive: ICE launches new effort to uncover US ‘birth tourism schemes' | ReutersThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Meta Platforms must face a lawsuit brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. The lawsuit claims that Instagram was intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teenagers. This decision is significant because it is the first time a state high court has addressed whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act can shield a company from claims focused on platform design rather than user-generated content.The court unanimously found that the case can proceed because it targets Meta's own conduct, not the content posted by users. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Instagram's features—such as notifications, “likes,” and endless scrolling—exploit young users' psychological vulnerabilities. It also alleges that Meta misled the public about the platform's safety and ignored internal research showing harm to teenagers.Meta disagrees with the ruling and maintains that the distinction between content and design is flawed, expressing confidence it will ultimately prevail. Meanwhile, the decision is part of a broader wave of litigation across the United States, with multiple states and plaintiffs accusing social media companies of contributing to a youth mental health crisis. Some recent cases have already resulted in significant financial penalties and verdicts against Meta and similar companies.Meta must face youth addiction lawsuit by Massachusetts, court rules | ReutersYou're getting a double dose of Meta today, with a second development tied to the growing wave of social media addiction litigation.Meta Platforms announced it will remove advertisements on Facebook and Instagram that were being used by law firms to recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits alleging its platforms are addictive to young users. The company said it is actively defending itself in thousands of ongoing cases and does not want attorneys using its services to find clients while simultaneously arguing those platforms are harmful. This move comes shortly after major courtroom setbacks, including jury verdicts that ordered Meta to pay millions in damages tied to alleged harms from youth social media use.The broader litigation landscape is large and still expanding. Thousands of cases are pending in both state and federal courts, many involving claims that platforms like Instagram were designed to encourage compulsive use and contributed to mental health issues among minors. Plaintiffs include individuals as well as public entities like school districts and states, which argue they have had to spend resources addressing the effects of social media on young people. Meta and other tech companies deny these allegations and maintain they have taken steps to improve user safety.The ads at issue are part of a common practice in mass tort litigation, where law firms seek out large numbers of plaintiffs to build cases. These firms often work on contingency, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle, which creates an incentive to recruit clients through widespread advertising. Some attorneys criticized Meta's decision, arguing that blocking ads could make it harder for potential victims to learn about their legal options.Meta pulls ads aimed at recruiting plaintiffs for social media addiction lawsuits | 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: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | 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: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 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: Seventeenth Amendment RatifiedOn April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became part of the Constitution after receiving the necessary number of state ratifications. This amendment fundamentally changed the method of selecting U.S. senators, shifting the power from state legislatures directly to voters. Prior to its adoption, senators were chosen by state lawmakers, a process that had increasingly drawn criticism for corruption and political deadlock. Reformers argued that legislative selection allowed special interests to exert undue influence over Senate seats. The amendment emerged during the Progressive Era, a period marked by widespread efforts to make government more democratic and transparent. By mandating direct elections, it aimed to increase accountability and restore public trust in the federal government. The change also reduced the frequency of vacancies caused by legislative gridlock in the states. Supporters viewed the amendment as a necessary correction to a system that had strayed from democratic principles. Critics, however, warned that it weakened the role of states within the federal structure. The ratification process itself reflected strong public pressure for reform across many states. Over time, the amendment reshaped the political dynamics of the Senate, making senators more responsive to public opinion. It also aligned the Senate more closely with the House of Representatives in terms of democratic legitimacy. Today, the Seventeenth Amendment remains a cornerstone of how Americans participate in federal elections, illustrating the enduring impact of Progressive Era reforms.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that Donald Trump has both the right and responsibility to influence federal investigations, including those involving people Trump views as adversaries. Speaking publicly for the first time since taking the role, Blanche rejected claims that the Justice Department was improperly targeting Trump's opponents. He argued that a president is expected to guide national priorities, even when that includes investigations tied to personal or political conflicts.The Justice Department has recently pursued multiple investigations involving individuals connected to past inquiries into Trump, as well as political opponents and donors. Some of these efforts have faced resistance in court, with judges and grand juries limiting or dismissing certain cases. Blanche pointed to past prosecutions against Trump as justification, saying the president is seeking accountability for what he views as misuse of the legal system.Blanche's appointment followed Trump's firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, reportedly due to frustration over the pace and results of investigations. Blanche did not say whether he wants to remain in the role permanently, emphasizing that the decision rests with Trump. He also indicated he would step aside if asked, expressing loyalty to the president.Acting DOJ chief Blanche says Trump has ‘right' to influence investigations | ReutersYale Law School lost its long-held No. 1 position in the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, marking the first time in 36 years it has not topped the list. Stanford Law School now holds the sole No. 1 spot, while Yale is tied for second with University of Chicago Law School. A slight drop in Yale's employment rate for graduates appears to have contributed to the shift, though other metrics like bar passage and LSAT scores remained stable.The rankings also saw broader changes among the traditionally top 14 law schools, known as the “T-14.” University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Georgetown University Law Center both fell out of that group, while Cornell Law School and Vanderbilt University Law School moved up in the rankings. Other schools, including University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and University of Virginia School of Law, saw smaller gains, while Harvard Law School remained steady.These fluctuations reflect changes in the ranking methodology introduced in recent years after several top schools, including Yale and Berkeley, criticized the system. The updated approach relies more heavily on data reported to the American Bar Association, making small differences in employment and bar passage rates more influential.Yale loses longtime No. 1 spot on latest US law school ranking | ReutersAI startups are increasingly targeting law students as part of a broader effort to capture the legal services market. Companies like Harvey AI and Legora are offering free access and training at top law schools, hoping students will continue using their tools once they enter law firms and corporate legal roles. This strategy comes as the legal AI sector expands rapidly, fueled by advances in generative AI since the rise of ChatGPT.These startups compete with established providers like LexisNexis and Westlaw, which have long dominated legal research and are now integrating AI into their platforms. While legacy companies rely on proprietary legal databases, newer entrants build tools on large language models and focus on tasks like drafting, research, and litigation preparation. Some partnerships have even emerged between startups and traditional providers to combine strengths.Law students are already using these tools for exam preparation, memo writing, and simulating legal arguments. Schools and companies also view this exposure as a way to teach both the benefits and risks of AI, including issues like inaccurate or “hallucinated” outputs. The broader goal is to create familiarity early, making future lawyers more likely to adopt these tools in practice.Other legal tech companies, including Clio and Spellbook, are pursuing similar partnerships, expanding access across hundreds of law schools. As competition grows, early access and training are becoming key battlegrounds for shaping the next generation of legal professionals.AI startups court law students in fight for lawyer market | 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: WHO EstablishedOn April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was officially established when its constitution entered into force, marking a pivotal moment in the development of international law. The creation of the WHO reflected a growing recognition among nations that public health challenges transcend borders and require coordinated legal and institutional responses. Its constitution set out a broad definition of health as a fundamental human right, helping to shape future legal frameworks and policy discussions worldwide. By joining the organization, member states accepted binding obligations, particularly in the areas of disease surveillance, reporting, and cooperation. These obligations were designed to promote transparency and rapid response to emerging health threats, which had historically spread unchecked due to limited coordination.The WHO's legal framework also empowered the organization to issue regulations and recommendations, including what would later become the International Health Regulations, a key tool in managing global health emergencies. This marked an important shift toward formalized international governance in public health, moving beyond informal cooperation to structured legal commitments. The constitution further established the World Health Assembly, giving member states a forum to negotiate and adopt health-related policies with legal and political significance. Over time, the WHO has played a central role in shaping international responses to pandemics, vaccination efforts, and health equity initiatives. Its authority, while not absolute, carries significant influence in both legal and diplomatic contexts.A group of YouTube creators has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company improperly used their copyrighted videos to train its AI video-generation tool, Nova Reel. The plaintiffs claim Amazon bypassed YouTube's technological safeguards to access and download large amounts of video content without permission. According to the complaint, Amazon used automated scraping tools and techniques like rotating IP addresses to avoid detection while extracting videos at scale. The creators argue that this conduct violated both YouTube's terms of service and federal copyright law.The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, focusing on Amazon's alleged circumvention of technological protection measures designed to safeguard content. Plaintiffs claim their videos were then used for Amazon's commercial benefit in developing its AI system, without compensation or consent. They also argue that once content is used to train AI models, it cannot be effectively removed, causing lasting harm to creators. The complaint challenges Amazon's characterization of its training data as “publicly available,” arguing that availability does not equal lawful use.The creators seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose content may have been similarly used. They are asking for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Amazon's actions were willful. The case highlights broader tensions between content creators and AI developers over data sourcing practices. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other AI companies, reflecting a growing wave of litigation in this area.YouTube Creators Say Amazon Scrapes Videos To Train AI - Law360The Supreme Court of the United States has sent a long-running lawsuit over alleged FBI surveillance of Muslims in Southern California back to a lower court for reconsideration. The case, brought by several individuals including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, claims the FBI unlawfully monitored their community using an informant after 9/11. The justices did not rule on the merits but instead instructed the lower courts to revisit the case in light of new factual developments and the government's motion to dismiss.At the center of the dispute is the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to block litigation if it risks exposing national security information. The FBI has argued that continuing the case could reveal sensitive intelligence methods and weaken this protection. Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, reasoning that courts should not dismiss claims too early without fully examining whether secret evidence is truly necessary. The appellate court suggested possible ways to proceed while protecting classified information, such as limited judicial review of sensitive materials.The Supreme Court's earlier 2022 decision confirmed that the state secrets privilege applies but left open how it should be used in this case. The Ninth Circuit later revived some claims, while still dismissing others against individual agents. The government challenged that ruling, arguing it forces courts to rely on protected information in ways that undermine the privilege. Plaintiffs, however, maintain their case can proceed using non-classified evidence and that the subject matter itself is not a state secret.The remand keeps the case alive but unresolved, requiring the lower courts to reassess whether it can proceed without endangering national security. The outcome could shape how courts handle similar conflicts between civil rights claims and government secrecy.Justices Remand State Secrets Dispute In FBI Spying Case - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine how a major IRS modernization effort fell short—not simply because of execution issues, but because of chronic underfunding. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act that were intended for modernization were largely redirected to cover basic operations. Instead of transforming systems and rebuilding long-term capacity, the IRS used much of the money to sustain staffing and maintain existing IT infrastructure. In my view, this outcome was predictable given the agency's longstanding resource constraints.I explain how budget cuts and workforce reductions undermined the modernization initiative from the start. Even with new funding, the IRS still had to meet its core obligation of processing hundreds of millions of tax returns each year. Faced with those pressures, it prioritized immediate operational needs over long-term upgrades, including spending significant sums on routine IT maintenance. I also point out that contractor spending surged, reflecting a growing reliance on outside support rather than investment in internal expertise.The report highlights inefficiencies as well, including canceled or reworked contracts that consumed large amounts of funding without delivering meaningful results. At the same time, labor costs remained elevated due to the complexities of downsizing, creating a situation where the IRS was both shrinking its workforce and paying contractors to compensate for lost capacity. I argue that this pattern is better understood as institutional outsourcing rather than modernization.Ultimately, I contend that real modernization cannot occur without stable baseline funding for core operations. Without that foundation, any new investment will continue to be diverted toward keeping the agency running. My conclusion is that Congress attempted to modernize the IRS without first ensuring its institutional stability, making the outcome not just disappointing, but largely inevitable. 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: Civil Rights Act of 1968On April 6, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, marking a major expansion of federal civil rights protections. Commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation aimed to eliminate discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. It prohibited unequal treatment based on race, religion, and national origin, later expanding to include sex and other protected characteristics. The law emerged during a period of national unrest, passed just days after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. King had long advocated for fair housing as a central component of racial equality, particularly in Northern cities.The Act addressed systemic practices such as redlining, steering, and discriminatory lending that had historically segregated communities. It gave the federal government authority to enforce fair housing standards, though early enforcement mechanisms were relatively weak. Over time, amendments strengthened the law, adding protections for people with disabilities and families with children. The statute also allowed individuals to file complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or pursue private lawsuits. Courts have since played a key role in interpreting the scope of the Act, especially in recognizing claims based on disparate impact.A central legal concept tied to the Fair Housing Act is disparate impact, which refers to policies that appear neutral but disproportionately harm protected groups. Unlike intentional discrimination, disparate impact does not require proof of discriminatory intent, only that a practice has an unequal effect. This theory became firmly established in housing law through later litigation and was upheld by the Supreme Court in cases interpreting the Act. It remains a critical tool for challenging structural inequality in housing markets.The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 represented both a response to national tragedy and a continuation of the broader civil rights movement's legislative achievements.A federal judge refused to reverse his earlier decision blocking subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, effectively pausing a criminal investigation and setting up a likely appeal. Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that prosecutors failed to show any valid basis for suspecting wrongdoing and criticized the lack of evidence supporting fraud allegations. He had previously found that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose, suggesting they were meant to pressure Powell to lower interest rates or step down.The subpoenas, issued by prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, sought information about cost overruns at the Federal Reserve's headquarters and Powell's prior congressional testimony. However, the court found no good-faith basis for believing a crime had occurred. Prosecutors argued the judge applied too strict a standard and misread the timeline of the investigation, but the court rejected those claims. Pirro's office has said it will appeal the ruling, a move supported by Justice Department leadership.The dispute reflects broader tensions between Powell and allies of President Donald Trump, with Powell arguing the investigation is an attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy. The appeal could delay efforts to confirm Kevin Warsh as a replacement for Powell, as some lawmakers have pledged to block the nomination while the case continues. Powell has said he will remain in his role until the legal challenge is resolved.US judge upholds block on subpoenas to Fed's Powell, teeing up likely appeal | ReutersA federal judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring public universities in 17 states to provide extensive admissions data related to race and sex. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction after state attorneys general challenged the policy, arguing it was imposed too quickly and created legal risks for schools. The data request came from the Department of Education, which sought seven years of information to evaluate whether colleges were complying with the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that ended affirmative action in higher education.The states argued that the reporting requirement was confusing and could expose universities to penalties for accidental errors. The court agreed that the rollout was “rushed and chaotic,” noting that officials failed to properly consider concerns raised by universities. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that the Department of Education does have legal authority to collect such data in general. The issue, he emphasized, was how the policy was implemented, not necessarily the underlying power itself.The ruling also pointed to practical problems, including staffing shortages within the agency after workforce reductions, which made it harder to manage the data collection process. Officials in states like New York and California supported the decision, saying schools should not be forced to produce large amounts of sensitive information under unclear requirements.Trump administration can't make colleges provide race-related data, judge rules | ReutersThe Trump administration filed an emergency motion asking an appeals court to allow construction to resume on a planned White House ballroom after a judge ordered the project paused. The administration argued that stopping the work creates serious security risks, claiming the site has been left vulnerable and could endanger the president, staff, and the building itself. The pause was ordered by Judge Richard Leon, who halted construction while a legal challenge moves forward.The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that President Donald Trumpexceeded his authority by demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning a $400 million replacement project without congressional approval. In response, the administration claims the lawsuit is legally flawed and that the president has full authority to renovate the White House. It also argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, meaning they do not have a sufficient legal stake to bring the case.Judge Leon temporarily paused his own order for 14 days to give the administration time to appeal, and the new emergency motion asks the appellate court to lift the construction halt entirely. The administration further contends that the lower court should not have heard the case at all, characterizing the claims as based on subjective concerns rather than legal injury.Trump administration files emergency motion to resume ballroom work, citing security issues | 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: Marshall PlanOn April 3, 1948, the United States formally enacted the Marshall Plan signing, a landmark legal and economic initiative designed to rebuild war-torn Europe after World War II. Officially known as the Economic Cooperation Act, the law authorized billions of dollars in aid to Western European nations. It represented a major expansion of U.S. foreign policy, grounded in Congress's constitutional power over spending and international commerce. The legislation also reflected a strategic legal response to the growing influence of the Soviet Union, using economic assistance as a tool of containment.The Marshall Plan required participating countries to cooperate with one another, creating legal agreements that promoted trade liberalization and economic integration. This cooperation laid early groundwork for institutions that would later evolve into the European Union. Domestically, the law raised important questions about the limits of federal authority in directing funds abroad and the role of the executive branch in administering large-scale international programs. Congress delegated significant discretion to the executive, particularly the State Department, to oversee implementation.One key legal element of the Marshall Plan was its use of conditional aid, meaning recipient countries had to meet certain economic and political requirements to receive funding. This introduced a model for future foreign aid programs, where compliance with specified conditions became a standard legal mechanism. The program also required oversight and reporting, ensuring accountability for how funds were spent, which helped shape modern administrative law practices.In practice, the Marshall Plan proved highly successful, contributing to rapid economic recovery and political stabilization in Western Europe. It also reinforced the legal concept that economic policy could serve as an instrument of international law and diplomacy. By blending domestic statutory authority with international agreements, the plan set a precedent for how the United States engages in global economic governance.President Donald Trump announced that Attorney General Pam Bondi will step down after serving about 14 months at the Department of Justice. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will assume the role on an acting basis while Bondi transitions out over the next month. Trump praised Bondi's tenure, highlighting reductions in violent crime and calling her service highly successful. Bondi also expressed pride in her role and indicated she will move into a private-sector position while continuing to support the administration's agenda.Her time in office, however, drew bipartisan criticism, particularly over the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which Congress had required to be released. Lawmakers from both parties accused the department of mishandling transparency and failing to fully pursue accountability. Some Republicans voiced frustration with delays in releasing information, while Democrats argued Bondi oversaw unequal treatment in related prosecutions.Bondi also faced scrutiny over political pressure to investigate individuals viewed as opponents of the president, raising concerns about the independence of the Justice Department. Her background included prior service as Florida's attorney general and involvement in Trump's political and legal efforts before her appointment.​​Bondi Out As Attorney General After Contentious Time At DOJ - Law360Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general | ReutersDLA Piper is set to face a rare jury trial in federal court over allegations that it fired a pregnant associate after she requested maternity leave. The lawsuit was brought by Anisha Mehta, who claims she was terminated in 2022 while six months pregnant, shortly after seeking leave. She argues the firm acted to avoid paying her during a period of reduced work and financial pressure.DLA Piper disputes the claims, asserting that Mehta was dismissed for performance issues and did not meet expectations for a senior associate. However, the presiding judge, Analisa Torres, found enough conflicting evidence—such as Mehta's prior bonuses and strong client work—to allow the case to proceed to trial. The claims include violations under federal, state, and New York City anti-discrimination laws, as well as interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act.The case is notable because employment discrimination trials involving large law firms are uncommon, as such disputes are often settled privately. A public trial could expose sensitive internal practices, including evaluation systems and compensation structures.A key legal issue in this case is the protection of employees under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This law guarantees eligible workers the right to take unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons, including pregnancy, without fear of losing their jobs. Mehta's claim centers on whether the firm unlawfully interfered with that right or retaliated against her for attempting to use it.Law firm DLA Piper faces jury trial over pregnancy bias claims | ReutersA federal judge is scrutinizing President Donald Trump's proposal to build a large “Independence Arch” near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Tanya Chutkan questioned whether the administration has the legal authority to move forward without clear approval from Congress, especially given the scale of the project. The proposed structure, expected to be taller than both the Lincoln Memorial and Paris's Arc de Triomphe, has raised concerns about its impact on a protected historic area.The lawsuit, brought by local residents, seeks to block construction before it begins, arguing that the project could cause irreversible damage to federally protected land. Plaintiffs contend that any major construction on such land requires explicit congressional authorization. The administration, however, argues that Congress previously granted broad authority for structures in that area and delegated oversight to the National Park Service.During the hearing, Judge Chutkan expressed skepticism about whether earlier congressional approvals actually cover a project of this magnitude. She also pressed government lawyers on conflicting signals between official agency statements—describing the project as preliminary—and Trump's public comments suggesting it is moving forward quickly.The judge has not yet ruled on whether to halt the project but is considering an injunction and may require additional disclosures about planning, permits, and contracts. She also asked whether the administration would agree not to proceed without proper approvals.A central legal issue in this case is the separation of powers, particularly Congress's authority over federal land and spending. The dispute turns on whether the executive branch can rely on prior delegations of authority or must obtain new legislative approval for a major project like this.Judge questions Trump plan for ‘Independence Arch' near the National Mall | 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: Coinage Act of 1792On April 2, 1792, the United States took a major step toward economic independence with the passage of the Coinage Act of 1792. This law created the first national mint, later known as the United States Mint, and established a standardized system of coinage for the young nation. Before this act, Americans relied heavily on foreign coins, including Spanish dollars, which made trade inconsistent and difficult to regulate. The law introduced the U.S. dollar as the official unit of currency and set its value based on both gold and silver, adopting a bimetallic standard. It also defined specific denominations, including cents, dimes, and eagles, many of which are still in use today.A key legal feature of the act was its detailed regulation of coin composition and weight, ensuring uniformity and public trust in the currency. The law imposed strict penalties for debasing coins, including severe criminal consequences, reflecting how seriously the government treated monetary integrity. It also placed the Mint under federal authority, reinforcing the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to coin money and regulate its value. By standardizing currency, the act helped stabilize commerce and supported the growth of a national economy.The Coinage Act also carried symbolic importance, as it marked a break from colonial dependence on European financial systems. It demonstrated the federal government's capacity to create and enforce complex economic regulations. Over time, the framework it established influenced later monetary policies and reforms. The act remains a foundational piece of American financial law, shaping how currency is produced and regulated even today.The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on April 1, 2026, over President Donald Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship, with Trump attending part of the session in person. The case centers on an executive order directing agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents. Several justices from both ideological wings questioned the administration's lawyer closely, signaling skepticism about the legal basis of the policy.The administration argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutiondoes not guarantee citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, emphasizing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Government lawyers claim this language excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. However, multiple justices challenged that interpretation, noting that historical understanding and past precedent support a broader reading.Chief Justice John Roberts described the administration's argument as difficult to reconcile with the narrow historical exceptions previously recognized. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to legislative history suggesting lawmakers intended citizenship to apply broadly to those born in the country. Justice Elena Kagan also questioned whether the administration relied on weak or selective historical sources. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, raised practical concerns about how the policy would be enforced, especially regarding determining parental intent to remain in the U.S.The challengers argue that the Court already settled the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. Some justices suggested that Trump's position may conflict with that precedent. The case could have wide-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove citizenship status.The legal dispute reflects broader tensions over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation, particularly how historical meaning should be applied to modern circumstances. The Court is expected to issue a decision by late June, which could significantly reshape the understanding of citizenship in the United States.​​With Trump present, Supreme Court questions administration's lawyer on birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge has allowed a lawsuit by the American Bar Association to move forward against the administration of Donald Trump. The case claims the administration created an unlawful policy to target law firms based on their past legal work, diversity efforts, and political affiliations. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali found that the ABA plausibly alleged a coordinated effort to intimidate lawyers and firms whose views the government opposed.According to the ruling, the ABA provided enough detail to suggest the policy may have discouraged firms from taking cases against the administration. The organization argues this created a “chilling effect,” causing some lawyers to avoid certain clients or legal challenges out of fear of retaliation. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the policy is illegal and an order preventing its enforcement.The dispute stems from executive orders issued by Trump that targeted specific law firms by restricting their access to federal resources, revoking security clearances, and threatening government contracts tied to their clients. Several courts previously blocked those orders, finding they likely violated constitutional protections such as free speech and due process. The administration has appealed those earlier rulings.Government lawyers argued the ABA should not be allowed to sue because it was not directly targeted and therefore lacks standing. They also denied that any broader policy to intimidate firms exists and described the claims as speculative. However, the ABA pointed to statements suggesting additional firms could be targeted and argued the effects are ongoing.Judge Ali's decision does not resolve the case but allows it to proceed, meaning the courts will continue to examine whether the administration's actions unlawfully interfered with the legal profession.Trump administration must face ABA lawsuit over law firm orders, judge rules | ReutersLuigi Mangione appeared in federal court seeking to delay his upcoming trial related to the killing of a health insurance executive. Mangione is facing federal stalking charges connected to the 2024 shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the trial should be postponed because he is also preparing for a separate New York state murder trial scheduled to begin earlier in the summer. They say handling two major cases at once would make it difficult for him to prepare an adequate defense.Prosecutors oppose delaying the federal trial, though they are open to adjusting parts of the pretrial process, such as juror questionnaires, to ensure fairness. Jury selection in the federal case is currently set for September, with opening statements planned for October. Mangione has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the shooting.A significant development in the case is that the federal murder charge was dismissed earlier, removing the possibility of the death penalty. The judge found that charge conflicted legally with the remaining stalking charges. Even so, Mangione could still face life in prison if convicted federally, along with a lengthy sentence in the state case.The case has drawn public attention, with some condemning the killing while others have expressed sympathy for Mangione due to broader frustrations with the U.S. healthcare system.Luigi Mangione due in court in bid to delay federal trial over CEO killing | 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: Constitutional Reform Act of 2005On April 1, 2005, a major shift in the structure of the United Kingdom's legal system began with the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This legislation fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government. Before the Act, the highest court functions were carried out by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, blending judicial and legislative roles in a way that raised concerns about separation of powers. The reform sought to modernize the constitution by clearly distinguishing judicial authority from Parliament. It also redefined the role of the Lord Chancellor, stripping away many of that office's judicial and legislative functions to reduce institutional overlap.One of the most important outcomes of the Act was the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which would eventually take over as the country's highest appellate court. Although the Court did not begin hearing cases until 2009, the legal foundation for its existence was firmly established on this date. The reform also created a new Judicial Appointments Commission, designed to make the process of selecting judges more transparent and independent from political influence. By doing so, the Act aimed to strengthen public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.The legislation reflected broader constitutional trends toward accountability and institutional clarity in democratic systems. It also aligned the UK more closely with other nations that maintain a clear separation between judicial and legislative bodies. Critics at the time questioned whether the changes were necessary in a system that had long functioned without a formal written constitution. Supporters, however, argued that the reforms were overdue and essential for maintaining the rule of law in a modern state. Over time, the changes introduced by the Act have become a defining feature of the UK's constitutional framework, shaping how justice is administered at the highest level.A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked plans by Donald Trump to build a large ballroom on the White House grounds, granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Judge Richard J. Leon concluded that the nonprofit is likely to succeed on its claim that the administration acted beyond its legal authority. He emphasized that Congress had not approved the project and that no statute gives the president power to construct new buildings on White House grounds without authorization. The court relied in part on the Constitution's Property Clause, which gives Congress control over federal land. The judge rejected the administration's argument that existing statutes or agencies, such as the National Park Service, provided sufficient authority. He also criticized the government for shifting explanations about which entity was responsible for the project.The lawsuit stems from the administration's decision to demolish the historic East Wing and move forward with construction without completing required reviews. These include environmental assessments, planning approvals, and congressional authorization. The court found that the potential harm to the White House's historical and cultural value justified immediate intervention. The judge also dismissed claims that delaying construction would create national security risks, calling those arguments unpersuasive. Although the project was described as privately funded, the court said that funding sources do not override statutory limits. As a result, construction must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the project. The judge temporarily paused enforcement of the injunction to allow the government time to appeal.‘Construction Has To Stop!': Judge Blocks Trump's Ballroom - Law360Judge orders Trump to halt $400 million White House ballroom project, for now | ReutersThe Supreme Court of the United States is considering whether Donald Trump can restrict birthright citizenship through an executive order, a move that could significantly change how citizenship is granted in the United States. The policy would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their parents are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Lower courts blocked the order, finding it likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and existing federal law. The justices are now reviewing that decision on appeal, with a ruling expected later this year.At the center of the dispute is the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all people born in the United States. The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or those in the country temporarily. Opponents contend this interpretation contradicts over a century of legal precedent, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals.The case could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove a child's eligibility for citizenship. It also reflects broader debates over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship remains intact or is significantly narrowed.US Supreme Court considers Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge refused to approve a proposed agreement that would have allowed churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. Judge J. Campbell Barker ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to sign off on the deal between the Internal Revenue Service and several religious groups. The agreement sought to carve out an exception to the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits from supporting political candidates.The judge based his decision on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a law that generally prevents courts from interfering with tax collection. He reasoned that approving the agreement would effectively limit how much tax the government could collect, placing the case outside the court's authority. The proposed settlement had been designed to resolve a lawsuit brought by religious broadcasters and churches challenging the Johnson Amendment.Supporters of the ruling argued it preserves the long-standing separation between political campaigning and tax-exempt religious activity. Opponents, including the groups that brought the lawsuit, said they plan to appeal and believe an exception should be allowed for religious speech. The dispute reflects a broader legal and political debate over the balance between free exercise of religion and restrictions tied to nonprofit tax benefits.US judge rejects IRS pact allowing churches to endorse political candidates | 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: Dominion of Newfoundland Becomes 10th ProvinceOn March 31, 1949, the Dominion of Newfoundland officially entered Confederation, becoming Canada's tenth province under the terms negotiated with the government of Canada. This union followed a series of national referendums in Newfoundland, where voters ultimately chose confederation over alternatives such as responsible government or economic union with the United States. The legal foundation for this transition was established through the British North America Act 1949, which amended Canada's constitutional framework to admit Newfoundland as a province. These Terms of Union set out the division of powers, financial arrangements, and transitional provisions necessary to integrate Newfoundland into the Canadian federation.One key legal issue involved the assumption of Newfoundland's public debt by Canada, which required careful fiscal and statutory planning to ensure a smooth transition. The agreement also guaranteed certain social benefits, including family allowances, aligning Newfoundland residents with federal welfare programs already in place across Canada. Additionally, the Terms addressed transportation links, committing Canada to maintaining ferry services and improving infrastructure between Newfoundland and the mainland. Legal provisions were also made for the continuation of Newfoundland's existing laws until they could be harmonized with Canadian federal and provincial statutes.The union raised constitutional questions about federalism, particularly how a previously self-governing dominion would adapt to a provincial role within Canada's system. It also required coordination between British and Canadian authorities, as Newfoundland had been under direct British administration prior to confederation. The involvement of British Parliament underscored the imperial legal framework still governing such transitions at the time. Over time, Newfoundland's legal system was gradually aligned with Canadian norms, though some regional distinctions persisted.This event illustrates the complexity of constitutional amendment and territorial integration within a federal system, particularly when sovereignty is partially transferred. It highlights how legal agreements can structure not only governance but also economic and social policy for newly incorporated regions. The Terms of Union remain a foundational legal document in Newfoundland and Labrador's relationship with Canada today.The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a rule that would expand access to alternative investments in retirement plans, but the shift raises real concerns—especially because it opens the door to assets like cryptocurrency. Framed as a clarification of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the proposal creates a “safe harbor” process that makes it easier for plan managers to justify including complex and higher-risk investments.At its core, the rule emphasizes that fiduciary responsibility is about process, not outcomes. That means as long as plan fiduciaries can show they considered factors like performance, fees, liquidity, valuation, and complexity, their decisions may be presumed prudent—even if the investments themselves are volatile or difficult to value.The proposal also reinforces that no category of investment is off-limits, explicitly rejecting any per se restrictions. That neutrality is doing a lot of work: in practice, it signals that assets like private equity, and notably digital assets such as crypto, can now be more comfortably included in 401(k)-style plans.Supporters argue this expands diversification and potential returns, but the tradeoffs are significant. Many of these alternative assets are less transparent, harder to price, and more illiquid than traditional investments—risks that are especially concerning in retirement accounts designed for long-term stability. Crypto, in particular, introduces extreme volatility and regulatory uncertainty, which may sit uneasily with ERISA's protective purpose.The rule also appears designed to curb the rise in fiduciary litigation by giving courts a reason to defer to plan managers who follow the outlined process. While that may reduce frivolous lawsuits, it could also make it harder for participants to challenge genuinely risky or poorly performing investment choices.In effect, the proposal shifts the balance: it gives fiduciaries more flexibility and legal cover, but potentially at the cost of exposing retirement savers to more complex and speculative assets. The big question is whether procedural compliance should be enough when the underlying investments themselves may carry substantial and unfamiliar risks.BREAKING: DOL Proposes Rule To Expand Alternative Investments In Retirement Plans - Law360Match Group has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that its OkCupidplatform improperly shared user data. According to regulators, the company allowed a third party, Clarifai, to access sensitive information from millions of users in 2014 without proper disclosure. This data reportedly included photos, demographic details, and location information, despite privacy policies suggesting otherwise.Under the settlement, Match Group is barred from misrepresenting how it handles user data and must implement compliance measures to ensure its privacy practices align with its public statements. The company did not admit liability as part of the agreement but could face financial penalties if it violates the terms in the future. The settlement still requires court approval.OkCupid stated that it has since improved its privacy protections and that the conduct at issue does not reflect its current practices.Match Group settles US FTC claims it illegally shared OkCupid user data | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Georgia's gas tax holiday is poorly timed, arriving not during a routine price increase but at the onset of a global, war-driven supply shock. While the policy may appear to offer immediate relief at the pump, I explain that higher prices actually play a necessary role in a market economy by signaling scarcity and pushing consumers to reduce demand. By lowering gas prices artificially, the state disrupts that signal, encouraging more consumption when conservation is most needed.I point out that this kind of intervention weakens the natural coordination between supply and demand, keeping consumption higher than the market can sustain and ultimately prolonging the imbalance. Rather than solving the problem, it risks shifting it into the future in the form of tighter supplies or even shortages. I also note that policies like this are politically attractive because they are visible and easy to implement, but that same visibility effectively subsidizes fuel use at the worst possible moment.Drawing on the experience of the 1970s energy crisis, I argue that similar efforts to shield consumers from rising prices led to distortions, long lines, and delayed adjustment rather than lasting relief. I describe the gas tax holiday as “affordability theater,” giving the illusion of help while masking the underlying scarcity and potentially leading to higher costs later. At the same time, I highlight how broader policy choices are working against long-term solutions by discouraging alternative energy sources and making substitutes like electric vehicles less accessible.I acknowledge that rising gas prices create real hardship, especially for lower- and middle-income households, but I argue that relief should be targeted and delivered through mechanisms like refundable tax credits or commuter benefits. This approach would help households manage costs without incentivizing additional fuel consumption. I also emphasize the need for policies that actively reduce demand, such as investing in public transit, encouraging remote work, and promoting conservation.Finally, I argue that any revenue gains from higher prices should be used to strengthen infrastructure and energy resilience rather than masking current problems. I conclude that while supply shocks inevitably bring economic pain, delaying adjustment through misguided policies will only make the consequences more severe in the long run. 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: Ronald Reagan Assassination AttemptOn March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The attack was carried out by John Hinckley Jr., who fired multiple shots as the president exited an event. Reagan was seriously wounded but survived after emergency surgery, while others, including Press Secretary James Brady, were also injured. The incident immediately triggered a high-profile federal criminal case against Hinckley. During trial, Hinckley's defense team argued that he was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. This outcome shocked the public and sparked widespread debate about the use and limits of the insanity defense in criminal law.Critics argued that the standard allowed dangerous individuals to avoid accountability, while supporters emphasized the importance of recognizing severe mental illness in legal responsibility. In response, Congress and many states moved to tighten the rules governing insanity defenses. One major reform was the passage of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which made it harder for defendants to succeed with such claims in federal court. The law shifted the burden of proof to defendants and narrowed the definition of legal insanity. The case also influenced how courts evaluate expert psychiatric testimony. Over time, Hinckley remained confined to a psychiatric institution rather than a traditional prison. His gradual release decades later continued to raise legal and ethical questions about mental illness and public safety. This event remains a defining moment in modern criminal law because it reshaped how courts balance mental health and criminal responsibility.Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking activities. The agreement, filed for preliminary approval in New York federal court, does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the bank. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, described the settlement as a meaningful recovery for survivors. The proposed class includes women and girls who were abused by Epstein or his associates, including those who received compensation tied to sexual activity. Payments to class members will vary based on factors such as the severity and duration of abuse and any cooperation with investigations.Doe alleged that Bank of America ignored warning signs and allowed suspicious financial transactions linked to Epstein's operations, including accounts opened in her name despite red flags. The bank denied facilitating any illegal conduct but stated the settlement allows it to resolve the matter and provide closure. The plaintiff's attorneys may seek up to 30% of the settlement fund in fees. The court had previously dismissed claims against another defendant, Bank of New York Mellon, and narrowed the case against Bank of America. The judge also rejected an effort by the bank to pause proceedings while related government matters were clarified.The plaintiff and her legal team weighed the risks of trial, including the possibility of a lengthy appeals process that could delay compensation for survivors. As part of the settlement process, a fund administrator will determine individual awards using specific criteria tied to each claimant's experience. The case highlights ongoing legal efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for their potential role in enabling trafficking networks.BofA Will Pay $72.5M In Deal Ending Epstein Ties Allegations - Law360Four major law firms—Jenner & Block LLP, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP—have asked the D.C. Circuit to uphold lower court rulings that invalidated executive orders issued by Donald Trump targeting them. The firms argue the orders were unconstitutional, claiming they violated the First Amendment and other protections by restricting their ability to practice law. The measures included suspending security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and penalizing the firms for their clients and legal work.The firms contend the orders were retaliatory, pointing to Trump's criticism of their pro bono work and connections to investigations involving him. They argue the government cannot punish lawyers for representing certain clients or expressing particular viewpoints. Each firm emphasized that the orders interfere with core legal principles, including the right to counsel, free association, and access to the courts.The U.S. Department of Justice initially sought to drop its appeal of the lower court decisions but quickly reversed course and is now defending the executive orders. The firms highlighted this reversal as evidence that the orders are legally weak. They also argue that the government has failed to meaningfully dispute claims that the orders were motivated by retaliation.The dispute is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for May. The outcome could have significant implications for executive power and the independence of the legal profession.Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings - Law360Law firms targeted by Trump ask court to uphold rulings blocking executive orders | ReutersA federal judge reduced the prison sentence of Elizabeth Holmes by one year, lowering her term from just over 11 years after applying updated federal sentencing guidelines. Holmes had requested a two-year reduction, but the court granted only a partial decrease despite opposition from prosecutors. The judge found that although her fraud caused approximately $452 million in investor losses, prosecutors failed to show that any individual victim suffered “substantial financial hardship,” which is required under the revised guidelines.The court emphasized that financial harm must be evaluated relative to each victim's wealth, noting that large losses do not automatically qualify as substantial hardship for wealthy investors. Because the government did not provide specific evidence of such harm, Holmes qualified for a reduced sentence as a nonviolent, first-time offender. However, the judge limited the reduction to one year to maintain deterrence and reflect the seriousness of her conduct.Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding investors in Theranos, the blood-testing startup she led alongside Ramesh Balwani. While her conviction included four counts of investor fraud, she was acquitted or not convicted on other charges. She began serving her sentence in 2023.Prosecutors argued against reducing her sentence, citing the scale of the losses, her limited restitution payments, and concerns about potential future misconduct. Holmes countered that investors knowingly took risks and were not financially devastated. The judge ultimately agreed that the legal standard for “substantial financial hardship” was not met.Elizabeth Holmes Gets 11-Year Prison Sentence Cut By A Year - Law360 UK 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. CruikshankOn March 27, 1876, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Cruikshank, a ruling that exposed the Court's deep reluctance to enforce the promises of Reconstruction. The case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where dozens of Black citizens were murdered by white supremacists attempting to overturn a contested election. Federal prosecutors secured convictions under the Enforcement Act, aiming to protect Black citizens' constitutional rights in the face of organized racial violence. The Supreme Court, however, dismantled those convictions with striking indifference to the underlying atrocities.The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state action, not the conduct of private individuals, effectively shielding perpetrators of racial terror from federal accountability. It further ruled that rights such as assembly and bearing arms were not protected from state interference through the Constitution at that time. This narrow interpretation gutted federal enforcement power at precisely the moment it was most needed. The decision ignored the reality that state authorities in the South were often unwilling—or actively refusing—to protect Black citizens.Critically, the Court's reasoning elevated formal legal distinctions over the lived experience of widespread, systematic violence. By insisting on a rigid state-action requirement, the justices created a legal loophole large enough to permit organized terror campaigns to flourish unchecked. The ruling signaled to white supremacist groups that federal intervention would be weak or nonexistent. In doing so, it contributed directly to the collapse of Reconstruction-era protections and the rise of Jim Crow.The long-term consequences were profound, as Cruikshank became a cornerstone for limiting civil rights enforcement for decades. It delayed meaningful federal protection of individual rights until well into the twentieth century. Modern constitutional law has largely rejected its reasoning through incorporation doctrine, yet its impact remains a stark reminder of how judicial decisions can entrench injustice.A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from labeling Anthropica national security supply chain risk, finding the move was likely unconstitutional retaliation. The dispute arose after Anthropic pushed back during contract negotiations with the government, arguing it should be allowed to limit how its AI system Claude is used, particularly for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. Shortly after the company made its position public, the administration directed agencies to stop using its tools and moved to formally designate it as a security risk.Judge Rita F. Lin concluded that Anthropic is likely to succeed on its claims, emphasizing that the government appeared to be punishing the company for publicly criticizing its contracting stance. She found that the measures were not closely tied to genuine national security concerns and instead resembled retaliation for protected speech. The court stressed that while the government is free to choose its vendors, it cannot take additional punitive steps that violate constitutional protections.The ruling also found that the designation was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and potentially violated due process because Anthropic had no opportunity to respond. The judge noted that branding a company as a national security threat for expressing disagreement raises serious constitutional concerns. The injunction blocks enforcement of the directive and prevents further action against the company while the case proceeds.The decision highlights broader tensions between government control over AI use and private companies' efforts to impose ethical limits. It also underscores concerns that government retaliation could chill public debate about AI safety. The administration must now report back to the court on its compliance with the order.Anthropic Blocks Pentagon's ‘Orwellian' Security Risk Label - Law360US judge blocks Pentagon's Anthropic blacklisting for now | ReutersA lawyer for Elon Musk has asked a federal judge to review a jury verdict that found him liable for defrauding Twitter investors during his acquisition of the platform, now known as X. The request focuses in part on the jury's use of the number “$4.20” on the verdict form, which Musk's attorney argued was an intentional joke that showed bias and suggested the jury was trying to “send a message” rather than decide the case impartially.Musk's legal team claims this, along with other alleged trial issues, undermines the integrity of the verdict and warrants further judicial review by Judge Charles Breyer. The verdict, issued on March 20, found Musk liable for certain public statements he made about the prevalence of bots on the platform during the acquisition process, which investors argued harmed the company's stock price. Potential damages in the case could reach as high as $2.5 billion.Attorneys for the investors strongly rejected Musk's arguments, calling them baseless and accusing him of attacking the jury instead of accepting responsibility. They emphasized that the verdict followed substantial evidence presented at trial.The dispute stems from claims that Musk publicly criticized Twitter to renegotiate or exit the deal, ultimately affecting shareholders who sold at lower prices. While the jury found him liable for some statements, it did not conclude that he engaged in a broader scheme to defraud.Musk urges judge to review Twitter verdict, accuses jury of ‘mocking' him | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived part of an ERISA class action against Wells Fargo and Ocwen Financial Corp., overturning a lower court decision that had dismissed the case before trial. The lawsuit was brought by trustees of a union pension fund, who claim the companies mishandled subprime mortgages tied to the fund's investments in mortgage-backed securities.The appellate court found that the trial judge made a key mistake in concluding that none of the underlying mortgages qualified as ERISA plan assets. While the court agreed that some mortgage-backed securities—specifically those structured as notes—are not plan assets, it ruled differently for securities issued as trust certificates. In those instances, the underlying mortgages can count as plan assets because the investment structure gives the pension fund an equity-like interest in the trust.This distinction matters because ERISA fiduciary duties apply only to plan assets. By recognizing that certain underlying mortgages fall within that definition, the court reopened the possibility that the companies could be held liable for breaching fiduciary duties. The pension fund alleges that the defendants mishandled loans during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, including pushing borrowers into foreclosure, which harmed the fund's investments.The court declined to decide whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary, noting that the lower court had not addressed that issue. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings on the revived claims.​​2nd Circ. Reopens Mortgage-Backed Securities ERISA Suit - Law360 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: Camp David AccordsOn March 26, 1979, Egypt and Israel formally signed the Camp David Accords, marking a historic breakthrough in international law and diplomacy. The agreement followed years of conflict between the two nations, including multiple wars that had destabilized the region. Brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the negotiations took place at the presidential retreat in Maryland. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin played central roles in reaching the accord. The resulting treaty established a framework for peace and normalized diplomatic relations between the two countries. It also included provisions for Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been occupied since the Six-Day War. In exchange, Egypt became the first Arab nation to officially recognize Israel. The agreement demonstrated the power of sustained negotiation and third-party mediation in resolving entrenched disputes. It also highlighted the role of international agreements as binding legal instruments between sovereign states. The treaty had lasting implications for Middle Eastern geopolitics and influenced future peace efforts in the region. While controversial at the time, it ultimately reduced the likelihood of further large-scale conflict between the two nations. The accords earned Sadat and Begin the Nobel Peace Prize, underscoring their global significance. The Camp David framework remains a key example of how diplomacy can achieve outcomes that military action cannot.A California jury in Los Angeles found Meta Platforms and Google liable for harming the mental health of a woman who said she became addicted to their platforms as a child. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages, effectively doubling the total award. Responsibility was split with Instagram accounting for 70% of the harm and YouTube 30%. Jurors concluded that both companies were negligent in designing their platforms and failed to warn users about potential dangers. They also found that the companies' conduct involved malice, fraud, or oppression, justifying punitive damages.This case is the first bellwether trial among thousands of similar lawsuits, making it an important test for future litigation against social media companies. The verdict increases potential legal exposure for these companies, which could face billions in liability nationwide. During trial, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that platform features like algorithms, autoplay, and infinite scroll were intentionally designed to be addictive. The defense countered that social media addiction is not a recognized condition and pointed to other factors in the plaintiff's life that could explain her mental health struggles.Jurors were influenced by a combination of evidence, including internal company materials and testimony from executives and former employees. Some jurors expressed skepticism about testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The relatively modest punitive damages award reflected hesitation about granting a large sum to a single individual. Both companies have stated they disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. The case could shape how courts evaluate claims about the harmful design of social media platforms.Jury Doubles Damages Against Meta, Google In LA Bellwether - Law360US jury verdicts against Meta, Google tee up fight over tech liability shield | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that had held Cox Communications liable for its customers' music piracy. The justices ruled that simply knowing customers may engage in copyright infringement is not enough to establish liability. Instead, there must be proof that the company intended to promote or encourage the illegal activity. The decision sends the case back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration under this clarified standard.The dispute originated from a 2019 jury verdict that ordered Cox to pay $1 billion to music companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. While the appellate court had upheld part of that ruling, the Supreme Court found that the legal standard for contributory infringement had been applied too broadly. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, emphasized that providing a general service—even with awareness of misuse—does not automatically create liability.The ruling marks the Court's first major examination of secondary copyright liability in years and draws on earlier cases like Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios and MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. A concurring opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the outcome but warned that the majority may have limited other ways to hold companies accountable, such as aiding-and-abetting theories.The decision is seen as a significant win for internet service providers, who argued that broader liability would force them to cut off users based on unproven accusations. At the same time, the music industry expressed concern that the ruling could weaken protections against widespread copyright infringement. The case highlights ongoing tension between protecting intellectual property and maintaining practical limits on intermediary liability.High Court Reverses Music Piracy Liability Ruling Against Cox - Law360Ousted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is facing U.S. criminal charges, including narcoterrorism, in a case that could test a rarely used federal law with a limited track record at trial. Prosecutors allege that Maduro led a conspiracy to traffic cocaine in coordination with groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the United States has labeled a terrorist organization. Maduro has pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations, claiming they are politically motivated.The narcoterrorism statute, enacted in 2006, targets drug trafficking tied to terrorism but has produced few successful trial outcomes. Of the small number of convictions obtained, some have later been overturned due to unreliable witness testimony. This history highlights a major challenge for prosecutors: proving that a defendant knowingly connected drug activity to terrorist operations. Legal experts note that this “knowledge” requirement is the most difficult element to establish in court.Maduro also faces additional charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, which could still result in severe penalties even if the narcoterrorism count proves difficult. The law carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, reflecting its seriousness. Prosecutors may rely on testimony from former Venezuelan officials, though the credibility of such cooperating witnesses could be heavily scrutinized.The case underscores broader tensions in applying U.S. criminal law to international actors and complex geopolitical conduct. It also demonstrates how expansive definitions of terrorism can complicate prosecutions. Ultimately, the outcome may shape how aggressively the U.S. uses narcoterrorism charges in future cases.Maduro case to test US narcoterrorism law with limited trial success | 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: Triangle Shirtwaist FactoryOn March 25, 1911, the devastating Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire unfolded in New York City, marking a turning point in American labor law. A fire broke out on the upper floors of a garment factory, trapping workers inside due to locked exit doors and inadequate safety infrastructure. In total, 146 workers lost their lives, many of them young immigrant women who had limited means of escape. The horrifying conditions quickly became public knowledge and sparked widespread outrage. Investigations revealed that existing labor laws were poorly enforced and insufficient to protect workers in rapidly industrializing cities. In response, New York State created the Factory Investigating Commission to examine workplace conditions and recommend reforms. Over the next few years, the commission helped draft more than 30 new laws addressing fire safety, sanitation, and building access. These legal reforms significantly strengthened the regulatory role of the state in protecting workers. The tragedy also energized the labor movement, giving momentum to unions advocating for safer conditions and fair treatment. Courts and lawmakers increasingly recognized that employers had a responsibility to anticipate and prevent workplace hazards. The legacy of the Triangle fire continues to influence occupational safety standards and legal frameworks governing employer liability today.Baltimore has filed a lawsuit against xAI over its Grok platform, alleging it can create nonconsensual sexualized deepfake images from ordinary photos. The complaint, brought by the city's mayor and council, claims the technology has been used to generate explicit images of both adults and minors. Officials argue this exposes residents to harassment, emotional harm, and privacy violations. The city also alleges that Grok was marketed as a safe and regulated platform despite lacking meaningful safeguards. According to the filing, users can request the tool to “nudify” images of third parties, including private individuals and children. The complaint estimates that millions of sexualized images were generated shortly after a key feature was launched, including thousands appearing to depict minors. Baltimore claims that even casual users of X may encounter such content without seeking it out.The lawsuit further argues that users' personal photos could be altered into explicit deepfakes without their consent or knowledge. Baltimore contends this contradicts the companies' public claims about preventing harmful and illegal content. The city accuses the defendants, including X and SpaceX, of engaging in deceptive and unfair business practices. It is seeking penalties and a court order requiring changes to the platform. Officials emphasized that deepfakes involving minors can cause long-term psychological harm and are difficult to control once circulated. The case is part of a broader wave of scrutiny, as regulators and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Europe have also raised concerns about Grok's capabilities.Baltimore Takes XAI To Court Over Grok's Sexual Deepfakes - Law360A New Mexico jury has ordered Meta Platforms Inc. to pay $375 million after finding the company misled the public about the risks its platforms pose to teenagers. The verdict followed a six-week trial and focused on claims brought by the state's attorney general. Jurors concluded that Meta engaged in both unfair practices and unconscionable conduct. They calculated damages based on tens of thousands of violations, applying the maximum statutory penalty for each.The state argued that Meta failed to adequately protect minors from harmful content, including bullying, sexual exploitation, and material related to self-harm. It also claimed the company allowed children under 13 to use its platforms despite official restrictions. According to the plaintiffs, Meta internally recognized these risks but presented a more reassuring picture to the public. Evidence at trial suggested that algorithm-driven content feeds increased compulsive use among teens. The state characterized this design as contributing to addiction and loss of user control.Meta countered that it has invested heavily in safety measures and employs thousands of people to monitor and remove harmful content. The company maintained that it has been transparent about the challenges of moderating online platforms. Despite these arguments, the jury ruled in favor of the state. Meta has said it will appeal the decision. The case is part of a broader wave of litigation across the country targeting social media companies over alleged harm to young users.Meta Owes $375M In NM Trial Over Harm To Teens - Law360Meta ordered to pay $375 million in New Mexico trial over child exploitation, user safety claims | ReutersA federal judge has expressed skepticism about the Pentagon's decision to blacklist Anthropic, suggesting it may have been retaliation for the company's public stance on AI safety. During a hearing in California, the judge indicated the designation appeared intended to “cripple” the company after it raised concerns about military uses of artificial intelligence. Anthropic had refused to allow its AI systems to be used for surveillance or autonomous weapons, citing safety and ethical risks.The U.S. Department of Defense labeled Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk, a designation that can block companies from receiving certain government contracts. Anthropic argues this move exceeded the authority of Pete Hegseth and caused significant financial and reputational harm. The company claims the action was unprecedented and followed a contract dispute with the military. It also alleges it was not given an opportunity to challenge the designation before it was imposed.In its lawsuit, Anthropic contends the government violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating against its views on AI safety. It also raises a Fifth Amendment due process claim, arguing it was denied fair procedures. Government lawyers responded that the designation was justified because Anthropic's resistance created potential risks to military systems. They argued the Pentagon must ensure that critical technologies remain secure and reliable.The judge has not yet issued a final ruling but is considering whether to temporarily block the designation while the case proceeds. The dispute highlights growing tensions between AI companies and the government over military applications of emerging technologies.US judge says Pentagon's blacklisting of Anthropic looks like punishment for its views on AI safety | ReutersNearly 50 U.S. law firms declined to provide demographic data for a major 2025 diversity survey conducted by the National Association for Law Placement, resulting in a significant drop in reported information. The number of participating firms fell from the previous year, reducing the dataset by about 29% and excluding tens of thousands of lawyers. The organization attributed this shift to growing political and regulatory pressure on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.Under the current administration, federal agencies have increased scrutiny of law firm hiring and diversity practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requested detailed hiring data from major firms, while the Federal Trade Commission warned firms that certain DEI-related practices could raise antitrust concerns. In response, many firms have scaled back public references to DEI or altered their policies. Some have also entered agreements with the administration to avoid penalties tied to their diversity initiatives.The reduced participation in the survey may limit transparency for law students and others who rely on the data to evaluate employers. It also affects the ability to track diversity trends across the legal profession. While the available data suggests that racial diversity among associates and summer associates declined in 2025, the smaller dataset makes year-to-year comparisons less reliable. Large firms, which typically report higher diversity levels, were disproportionately absent from the data.Facing DEI pressures, some law firms shield data in latest diversity survey | 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: Exxon ValdezOn March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into the surrounding waters. The disaster quickly became one of the most devastating environmental crises in United States history, contaminating vast stretches of coastline and severely impacting wildlife and local communities. In the immediate aftermath, attention turned not only to cleanup efforts but also to the legal consequences for Exxon. Federal and state authorities pursued claims under environmental statutes, while thousands of private plaintiffs, including fishermen and Alaska Natives, filed civil lawsuits seeking compensation for economic and ecological harm.The litigation that followed raised complex questions about corporate responsibility and the scope of damages available under maritime law. A central issue was whether punitive damages—intended to punish especially reckless conduct—could be imposed on Exxon for the actions of the ship's captain. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, where the Court addressed the proper limits of punitive damages in maritime cases. In a closely watched decision, the Court reduced the punitive damages award, holding that it should be roughly equal to the compensatory damages awarded to plaintiffs.This ruling had lasting implications for how courts evaluate excessive punitive damages and balance punishment with fairness to defendants. Beyond the courtroom, the spill prompted Congress to pass the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which strengthened federal authority to prevent and respond to oil spills. The Act also expanded liability for companies and created a trust fund to ensure prompt cleanup and compensation. Together, the disaster and its legal aftermath reshaped environmental regulation, corporate accountability, and the development of modern tort law in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether the Trump administration can limit the processing of asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border. At the center of the case is a policy known as “metering,” which allowed immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers when border facilities were considered too overwhelmed to handle additional applications. This policy had been used in a more informal way starting in 2016 and was formalized during Trump's first term, before being rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021.The legal dispute focuses on how to interpret federal law requiring that migrants who “arrive in the United States” be allowed to apply for asylum and be inspected by immigration officials. A key question is whether individuals stopped on the Mexican side of the border can be considered to have “arrived” under the statute. A federal appeals court previously ruled that the government must process asylum seekers even if they are waiting at official border crossings, finding that the metering policy violated the law.The Trump administration disagrees, arguing that “arriving” requires actually entering U.S. territory, not merely approaching it. Officials have indicated they may reinstate the policy if conditions at the border justify doing so. The case, originally brought by an advocacy group, could significantly shape how asylum law is applied at the border.This dispute highlights a broader pattern of ongoing legal battles over immigration policy before the Supreme Court. The Court has recently sided with Trump in several emergency rulings on related issues, including deportation practices and limits on temporary protected status. Additional cases involving birthright citizenship and protections for certain migrant groups are also scheduled for review.US Supreme Court to weigh Trump's power to limit asylum processing | ReutersThe Trump administration has opened two new federal investigations into Harvard University, intensifying its broader scrutiny of elite U.S. schools. The Department of Education's civil rights office is examining whether Harvard violated federal law by discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. One investigation focuses on whether the university continues to use race in admissions despite the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. The second probe looks into allegations of antisemitism on campus, following reports that both Jewish and Muslim students experienced harassment.Harvard has denied wrongdoing, stating it complies with the law and is taking steps to address discrimination while defending its institutional independence. These new investigations add to ongoing legal conflict between the federal government and the university. The administration has already filed lawsuits seeking financial penalties and documents related to admissions practices, while negotiations to resolve the disputes have stalled.The probes are part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration targeting universities over issues such as campus protests, diversity initiatives, and federal funding. Critics argue these actions threaten academic freedom, free speech, and student privacy, while supporters say they are necessary to enforce civil rights laws. Some settlements with other universities, including large financial payments, have raised concerns about setting precedent for costly agreements.Trump administration launches more probes into Harvard | ReutersThe National Collegiate Athletic Association has filed a lawsuit against DraftKings, accusing the company of improperly using trademarks tied to its college basketball tournament. The dispute centers on well-known phrases such as “March Madness,” “Final Four,” “Elite Eight,” and “Sweet Sixteen,” which the NCAA argues are being used without authorization in DraftKings' betting promotions. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, seeks to stop DraftKings from using these terms and also requests monetary damages.The NCAA claims that DraftKings' marketing falsely suggests a connection or endorsement between the organization and the betting platform, which it says harms its reputation. It also argues that sports betting—especially “prop bets” focused on individual player performance—can threaten the integrity of games and expose student-athletes to harassment or undue pressure. The NCAA has long opposed partnerships with gambling companies for these reasons.DraftKings disputes the claims, arguing that its use of the terms is descriptive and protected under the Constitution, rather than a violation of trademark law. The company maintains it is simply identifying the events on which users can place bets.This case comes amid a surge in sports betting, with billions of dollars expected to be wagered on the tournament, and reflects broader tensions between sports organizations and the gambling industry.NCAA sues to block DraftKings from using ‘March Madness' trademarks | ReutersIn my Bloomberg column this week, I examine New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's proposal to sharply lower the state's estate tax exemption to $750,000 and the broader issue it raises about how the U.S. tax system treats inherited wealth. I argue that Mamdani is right to highlight a fundamental imbalance: wealth passed down across generations is often taxed more lightly than income earned through work. However, I contend that his current proposal is poorly targeted and risks burdening middle-class households, particularly in a high-cost market like New York, where even modest homes can exceed the proposed threshold.I explain that estate taxes are one of the few tools available to address intergenerational wealth concentration, but they must be carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. A major flaw in the proposal is its low exemption level, which could capture asset-rich but cash-poor individuals, forcing difficult financial decisions such as selling homes or small businesses. I also highlight a structural problem in New York's existing estate tax system—the so-called “cliff”—where slightly exceeding the exemption can trigger taxes on the entire estate, creating sharp and arbitrary increases in liability.I note that this cliff encourages costly estate planning strategies that do little to benefit the broader economy while allowing those with resources to minimize their tax burden. Expanding the tax without fixing this issue would likely worsen these inefficiencies and inequities. While critics argue that higher estate taxes could drive wealthy residents out of the state, I suggest that the real issue is not whether to tax inherited wealth, but how to do so effectively.I conclude that a better approach would involve lowering the exemption more moderately, eliminating the estate tax cliff, and focusing higher tax rates on very large estates in the tens of millions. I also suggest policymakers consider special rules for illiquid assets like primary residences and closely held businesses. Overall, I argue that estate taxes can play a meaningful role in reducing dynastic wealth—but only if they are structured in a way that is fair, predictable, and politically sustainable.Mamdani's NY Estate Tax Exemption Should Target Dynastic Wealth 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: ACA Signed into LawOn March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, marking a transformative moment in American legal and social policy. The statute, widely known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sought to expand access to health insurance and reduce overall healthcare costs. Central to the law was the individual mandate, which required most Americans to obtain health insurance or face a financial penalty. The ACA also significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility, allowing millions of low-income individuals to gain coverage. Another key provision prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, reshaping longstanding industry practices.Almost immediately after its passage, the law faced a wave of legal challenges from states, private parties, and advocacy groups. Critics argued that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by compelling individuals to engage in commerce. The dispute reached the Supreme Court in the landmark case of NFIB v. Sebelius. In a closely divided decision, the Court held that the individual mandate could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause. However, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the controlling opinion that upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.The Court also addressed the ACA's Medicaid expansion, ruling that Congress could not coerce states into expanding coverage by threatening existing Medicaid funding. This aspect of the decision reinforced limits on federal power under the Spending Clause and preserved a degree of state sovereignty. The ACA continued to generate litigation in subsequent years, including challenges to its subsidy structure and individual mandate enforcement. Despite these legal battles, the law remains a central feature of the U.S. healthcare system. Its passage and judicial review reshaped modern constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding the balance between federal authority and individual liberty.A California federal jury found that Elon Musk committed securities fraud in connection with his $44 billion attempt to acquire Twitter. After roughly 20 hours of deliberation, the jury concluded that two of Musk's May 2022 tweets misled investors about the status of the deal and the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on the platform. In particular, his statement that the deal was “temporarily on hold” while awaiting bot data was deemed materially misleading. The jury also found liability for a later tweet suggesting bots made up at least 20% of users and that the deal could not proceed without proof.However, jurors rejected the broader claim that Musk engaged in an overall scheme to defraud investors. They also declined to find liability for statements he made at a tech conference, determining those remarks were not proven to be fraudulent. The class of affected investors included those who traded Twitter stock or related options between May and October 2022 and claimed they suffered losses due to artificially depressed prices. While the jury did not calculate a final damages figure, plaintiffs' counsel estimated potential damages at about $2.6 billion.The verdict form instead required jurors to assess damages across 98 separate trading days, meaning total compensation will depend on individual trading activity. Plaintiffs' attorneys characterized the decision as a win for market integrity, emphasizing that even high-profile figures must comply with securities laws. Musk's legal team, by contrast, downplayed the outcome and indicated plans to appeal. The case featured testimony from Twitter executives, deal advisers, and co-founder Jack Dorsey, as well as disputes over whether Twitter accurately reported bot activity.Jury Says Musk Defrauded Twitter Investors In $44B Buyout - Law360The White House, under Donald Trump, released a legislative framework urging Congress to override state-level artificial intelligence regulations in favor of a single national standard. The administration argues that a patchwork of state laws creates unnecessary obstacles for innovation and weakens the United States' ability to compete globally in AI development. At the same time, the proposal preserves certain areas of state authority, including laws addressing fraud, consumer protection, child safety, zoning, and state government use of AI.The framework also addresses intellectual property concerns, recommending that courts continue to decide whether training AI systems on copyrighted material violates the law. It suggests Congress consider mechanisms that allow creators to collectively negotiate compensation from AI companies without triggering antitrust issues. Additionally, it calls for federal protections against unauthorized AI-generated replicas of individuals' likeness, voice, or identity, while allowing exceptions for news and satire.Another key focus is infrastructure, with proposals to prevent rising electricity costs from being passed on to consumers as AI data centers expand. The plan encourages faster federal permitting and supports alternative energy solutions to power AI development. It also includes provisions aimed at preventing government pressure on tech companies to censor speech and ensuring that federal data can be used to train AI systems.The proposal has drawn mixed reactions. Industry groups and several Republican lawmakers praised the approach as promoting innovation through lighter regulation. In contrast, consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers criticized it as favoring large technology companies while removing important state-level protections. Some Democrats have introduced legislation to block the initiative and preserve states' authority to regulate AI.White House Pushes Congress To Override State AI Laws - Law360 UKThe U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case involving Mississippi's law that allows certain mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but arrive up to five business days later. The dispute stems from a challenge brought by Republican groups, including the Republican National Committee, which argue that the law conflicts with federal election statutes. The Trump administration is supporting this challenge, continuing its broader push to restrict mail-in voting.Mississippi enacted the rule in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with bipartisan support. It applies to limited categories of voters, such as the elderly, disabled individuals, and those temporarily away from home. However, in 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the law likely violates federal law, which it interpreted as requiring ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day. The court concluded that states cannot extend the deadline for receiving ballots beyond that date.The Supreme Court is now reviewing Mississippi's appeal of that decision, with potentially broad implications. Roughly 30 states and Washington, D.C. have similar policies that count ballots arriving after Election Day if they were mailed on time. A ruling against Mississippi could therefore force significant changes to voting procedures nationwide and limit the use of mail-in ballots.The case also reflects ongoing political disputes over election integrity and access to voting. Republicans have raised concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, while critics argue that restrictions could reduce voter participation. The outcome of this case may clarify how federal election law interacts with state authority over voting procedures.US Supreme Court weighs Republican bid to limit mail-in voting | 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

We've launched a new project: FRTracker.app. It's a platform designed to help track what's happening across the regulatory state—rulemakings, agency actions, and the steady flow of activity coming out of administrative agencies.The goal is straightforward: make it easier to see what's changing, when it's changing, and why it matters.If you're an attorney, journalist, or researcher working in this space, we'd encourage you to take a look. And as always, feedback is not just welcome—it's essential. The website is FRTracker.app and we look forward to hearing from you or, if all is in order, your finding a way to make use of it in your practice area or work. Thanks so much!This Day in Legal History: First Official Meeting of the US Republican PartyOn March 20, 1854, the newly formed Republican Party held its first official meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The party emerged in direct response to the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, a controversial law that allowed new territories to decide the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty. This legislative shift effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had previously set geographic limits on slavery's expansion.The outrage among anti-slavery activists, lawyers, and former members of existing parties led to a rapid political realignment. Legal debates at the time centered on Congress's authority over the territories and whether slavery could be restricted as a matter of federal law. These were not abstract questions—they went directly to the structure of the Constitution and the balance of power between federal authority and local control.The formation of the Republican Party reflected a growing belief that existing legal frameworks had failed to contain the spread of slavery. Within a few years, the party would become a major political force, culminating in the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. By his reelection campaign in 1864, however, Lincoln ran under the banner of the National Union Party, a wartime coalition of Republicans and pro-Union Democrats.That shift did not necessarily reflect a rejection of the Republican Party itself, but it did signal unease with factionalism and the limits of party identity during a constitutional crisis. The rebranding was a strategic and legal-political move: to broaden support for the Union, stabilize governance, and frame the election as a referendum on national survival rather than partisan ideology.The legal disputes surrounding slavery, territorial governance, and federal authority would ultimately be resolved not just through legislation or court decisions, but through war and constitutional amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would later eliminate slavery nationwide, fundamentally reshaping American law.What began as a meeting in a small Wisconsin town became a turning point in the legal history of the United States, illustrating how statutory change can rapidly destabilize existing legal and political orders.A federal judge in Oregon ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce a policy aimed at restricting gender-affirming care for minors, siding with 21 states and the District of Columbia. The challenged policy, issued by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declared such care unsafe and ineffective and warned that providers could lose access to Medicare and Medicaid funding. The states argued the policy was unlawful because it bypassed required rulemaking procedures and interfered with their authority to regulate medical practice.Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai granted summary judgment to the states and rejected the federal government's attempt to dismiss the case. While the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it signaled that the policy will be formally invalidated, with further briefing ordered on the scope of relief. The states emphasized that the policy placed healthcare providers in a difficult position by threatening funding while conflicting with state laws that protect access to gender-affirming care.The federal government argued the policy was merely advisory and not subject to judicial review, but the court was not persuaded. State attorneys general described the ruling as a rejection of federal overreach and an affirmation that such healthcare remains lawful. The decision preserves access to care for transgender minors in the plaintiff states, at least for now.This case turns in part on whether the HHS policy qualifies as a “final agency action” that must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. The states argued that even if labeled as guidance, the policy had real legal consequences—namely, threatening loss of federal funding—making it effectively binding. Courts often look beyond labels to the practical effect of agency actions, and here the judge appeared to agree that the policy could not avoid APA requirements simply by being framed as a statement rather than a formal rule. This issue, central to the dispute, frequently arises in challenges to modern administrative action.HHS Can't Block Trans Care Under Kennedy Edict, Court Says - Law360A coalition of eight states has sued to block Nexstar Media Group's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna, even after the deal received approval from both the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. The states argue the merger would create excessive concentration in local television markets, giving the combined company control over stations reaching roughly 80% of U.S. households. They contend this market power would allow Nexstar to raise prices for cable and satellite providers and reduce competition for broadcast content.The lawsuit also raises concerns about the impact on local journalism, with state enforcers warning that consolidation could lead to newsroom cuts and less coverage of local issues. DirecTV filed a parallel challenge, similarly arguing that the deal would increase costs, reduce competition, and lead to more frequent service disruptions.Despite these objections, the FCC approved the merger with conditions, including the divestiture of several stations and commitments related to pricing and local news. Nexstar defended the deal as necessary to sustain local broadcasting and improve its ability to deliver journalism at scale.The case highlights a growing divide between federal regulators and state enforcers, with states increasingly willing to challenge mergers even after federal clearance. It also reflects broader concerns about consolidation in media markets and its downstream effects on both pricing and the availability of local news.States Sue To Block $6.2B Tegna Acquisition Despite Feds' OK - Law360In this piece I wrote for Forbes, I look at the Netherlands' decision to outsource the core infrastructure of its value-added tax (VAT) system to the U.S.-based company FAST Enterprises. This is not just a software contract—FAST is responsible for operating, maintaining, and running key components of the Dutch VAT system remotely. Given that VAT generates roughly €1.5 billion per week in revenue, the arrangement creates a situation where a critical stream of government funding depends, at least in part, on a system controlled outside the country.I explain that this introduces a new kind of risk: technical dependency can quickly become financial dependency. If VAT collection is disrupted for any reason, the government cannot simply pause operations—it must borrow, and markets may react immediately. That turns what appears to be an IT issue into a fiscal and potentially geopolitical one.The broader argument is that this reflects a deeper shift in how states operate. What looks like routine modernization is actually a trade-off between efficiency and control. By adopting what I describe as “VAT-as-a-service,” the Netherlands has effectively externalized part of its tax infrastructure, raising questions about who ultimately controls a core sovereign function.I also place this in a geopolitical context, noting that reliance on foreign-operated infrastructure can create indirect leverage, even without any explicit “off switch.” The concern is less about intentional disruption and more about exposure—legal, regulatory, or systemic—that comes with cross-border dependence.Finally, I argue that this is not just a Dutch issue but a European trend, as governments increasingly rely on private and often non-domestic vendors for critical systems. The key takeaway is that tax infrastructure decisions should be evaluated not just on cost and efficiency, but on sovereignty, jurisdiction, and contingency planning.Dutch VAT-As-A-Service And The Quiet Outsourcing Of Tax SovereigntyApologies for a double dose of me today – I wrote a piece for Yale's Journal of Regulation Notice & Comment blog examining how regulatory obligations change during notice-and-comment rulemaking. The core argument is that most analyses look at the wrong unit—entire rules—when the real substance of regulation lies in the individual obligations imposed on regulated parties. By breaking rules down into sentence-level commands, the analysis tracks what actually happens to those obligations from proposal to final rule.The data shows that only about one-third of proposed obligations survive into final rules in a recognizable form, while most are eliminated altogether. Agencies are far more likely to remove obligations than to revise them, suggesting that rulemaking operates less like incremental editing and more like a filtering process. At the same time, final rules frequently introduce entirely new obligations that were not present in the proposal.When obligations do carry over, their core legal force—whether something is required, prohibited, or permitted—almost never changes. This indicates that survival tends to preserve substance, even as most proposed provisions disappear. The analysis also finds significant variation across agencies, with some making minimal changes and others heavily restructuring their rules.The findings challenge the assumption that proposed rules are reliable previews of final regulatory requirements. Instead, they suggest that stakeholders may be commenting on provisions that are unlikely to survive, while final rules may include new obligations that were never clearly proposed. This reframes notice-and-comment as a process that selects and reshapes regulatory commands, rather than simply refining them.The key legal insight is that the notice-and-comment process may not function primarily as iterative refinement, but as a filtering system that determines which obligations survive into binding law. This matters because administrative law doctrine assumes that public comments help shape final rules through feedback on proposed text. If most obligations are discarded rather than revised, it raises questions about whether the process provides meaningful notice of what will ultimately bind regulated parties. That directly challenges conventional assumptions about how rulemaking works in practice.Only One-Third of Proposed Regulatory Obligations Survive to the Final Rule, by Andrew Leahey - Yale Journal on Regulation 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: Poll TaxOn March 19, 1962, Congress approved a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax in federal elections, a practice that had long been used to suppress voter participation. The poll tax required citizens to pay a fee before casting a ballot, which disproportionately affected low-income individuals, especially African Americans in the South. By removing this financial barrier, Congress took a clear step toward expanding access to the democratic process. The amendment was later ratified as the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, cementing the principle that voting should not depend on one's ability to pay. This change reflected the growing influence of the civil rights movement, which pushed lawmakers to confront systemic inequality in voting laws. It also signaled a broader shift toward recognizing voting as a fundamental right rather than a conditional privilege.The legal reasoning behind abolishing the poll tax focused on fairness and equal protection, emphasizing that economic status should not determine political participation. Courts and lawmakers increasingly viewed such barriers as incompatible with democratic ideals. This moment in legal history continues to shape debates about what constitutes an undue burden on voters.Today, discussions around the SAVE Act, which proposes strict voter identification requirements, have raised similar questions about access and eligibility. Supporters argue that identification rules protect election integrity, despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Critics warn that they may disproportionately affect certain groups, including those with limited access to documentation. The comparison to the poll tax debate lies in how both policies raise concerns about whether procedural requirements might exclude eligible voters. While the mechanisms differ—one being a direct financial cost and the other an administrative requirement—the underlying legal tension remains similar. Lawmakers and courts must again weigh the balance between safeguarding elections and ensuring that access to voting remains broad and equitable.The Third Circuit heard arguments in a high-stakes appeal involving a $1.6 billion False Claims Act (FCA) verdict against Johnson & Johnson and broader challenges to the law's constitutionality. The FCA is a federal law that allows the government to pursue individuals or companies that defraud federal programs. It also lets private whistleblowers file lawsuits on the government's behalf and share in any financial recovery.Judges appeared reluctant to dismantle the FCA's whistleblower, or qui tam, mechanism, though they engaged seriously with arguments questioning its validity. Much of the discussion focused on whether private individuals wield too much power by bringing fraud claims on behalf of the government. An attorney for business groups argued that this structure improperly grants executive authority to non-government actors, while judges pushed back by pointing to the long historical use of such actions.A central issue in the case was “materiality,” meaning whether the alleged misconduct actually influenced the government's decision to pay claims. J&J argued there was no proof that its actions affected payment decisions, but the judges suggested that such determinations are typically left to juries. They also questioned whether J&J had properly preserved certain legal arguments for appeal. The Department of Justice disputed J&J's interpretation of its position, emphasizing that the evidence could still support liability under the FCA.The panel also examined the role of evidence and jury instructions, particularly how jurors were told to evaluate whether improper marketing led to false claims. J&J criticized the “substantial factor” standard used at trial, arguing it was unclear and insufficient. In response, the whistleblowers' counsel maintained that J&J was seeking a stricter standard than the law requires. Judges appeared to wrestle with whether the instructions properly guided the jury without overcomplicating the burden of proof.Overall, the arguments revealed judicial skepticism toward sweeping constitutional attacks on the FCA, alongside concern about how the specific trial was conducted. The case highlights ongoing legal debates over the balance between encouraging whistleblowers and ensuring fair limits on liability.Key Details As 3rd Circ. Ponders FCA's Fate, $1.6B J&J Fine - Law360Music company BMG has sued AI firm Anthropic, alleging it used copyrighted song lyrics from artists like Bruno Mars, the Rolling Stones, and Ariana Grande to train its Claude chatbot without permission. The lawsuit claims this involved copying hundreds of protected works, possibly sourced from unauthorized platforms, and seeks significant damages under U.S. copyright law.The case is part of a broader wave of lawsuits against AI companies over training data practices, including a similar ongoing suit by other music publishers and a prior $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic reached with authors. While BMG argues this use is unlawful infringement, AI companies like Anthropic maintain that training models on such material qualifies as fair use because it transforms the content.BMG sues Anthropic for using Bruno Mars, Rolling Stones lyrics in AI training | ReutersA Second Circuit judge sharply questioned OpenAI's position in a copyright dispute with Raw Story, expressing frustration that the company's lawyer could not explain whether its AI system copied articles or removed copyright management information (CMI). The judge suggested that this lack of clarity weakened OpenAI's argument, especially at an early stage without full discovery.OpenAI argued the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show concrete harm or properly allege infringement, emphasizing that removing CMI alone does not violate a protected property right. The company also claimed the complaint relied too heavily on speculation rather than specific facts about how its systems operate. However, the judges appeared skeptical, noting that factual questions about copying and CMI removal might need further development.Raw Story countered that copying articles without CMI is itself a recognized legal injury and fits within longstanding copyright protections. The publishers also argued that OpenAI knowingly removed identifying information in a way that could enable infringement, which is prohibited under the DMCA. The panel ultimately took the case under advisement, leaving unresolved key questions about how copyright law applies to AI systems.2nd Circ. Judge Unimpressed By OpenAI's IP Suit Stance - Law360An immigration judge has ended the asylum claims of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family after their detention during a large immigration operation in Minnesota. Liam and his father were taken into custody in January and held for about 10 days in a Texas facility before being released. Public attention grew after a widely shared image showed the child standing outside his home while federal agents were nearby.The ruling was issued by U.S. Immigration Judge John Burns, and the family's attorney has said they will appeal the decision, a process that could take a long time. Community members, including Liam's school district, expressed sadness and concern over the outcome while acknowledging that the legal process is ongoing.The case is tied to “Operation Metro Surge,” a large-scale enforcement effort that brought thousands of immigration agents to Minnesota. The operation led to widespread detentions and significant backlash, especially after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot during related protests or observations. The federal government later ended the operation, but local communities continue to deal with its emotional and economic effects.Advocates and officials have emphasized the broader human impact of the raid, particularly on children and families whose lives were disrupted. Liam's case has become a focal point in discussions about immigration enforcement and its consequences.Judge ends asylum claim of Minnesotan boy detained by ICE, report says | 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: Missouri v. HollandOn March 18, 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Missouri v. Holland, clarifying the scope of federal treaty power. The case arose when the state of Missouri challenged a federal statute that implemented a treaty between the United States and Great Britain to protect migratory birds. Missouri argued that the regulation of wildlife fell within the state's reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. The state maintained that the federal government could not use a treaty to expand its authority into areas traditionally controlled by the states.The Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the federal law. Writing for the Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.emphasized that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to make treaties, and that these treaties can address matters of national and international concern. He reasoned that migratory birds, by their nature, cross state and national boundaries, making them an appropriate subject for international agreement. The Court concluded that when a treaty is validly made, Congress may pass laws necessary to implement it, even if those laws regulate areas otherwise left to the states.This decision reinforced the supremacy of federal treaties over conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. It also signaled a broader understanding of federal power in foreign affairs, particularly when international cooperation is required. The ruling has had lasting implications for the balance between state and federal authority, especially in cases involving environmental regulation and international commitments.A California federal jury is weighing whether Elon Musk committed securities fraud through his public statements about Twitter during his 2022 acquisition attempt. Investors claim Musk deliberately made misleading statements about the level of spam and fake accounts to drive down Twitter's stock price after agreeing to buy the company. According to their lawyers, these statements were part of a calculated plan to gain leverage to renegotiate or exit the $44 billion deal. They argue Musk had no evidence for his claims and point to internal communications suggesting he was already considering a lower price. The investors also emphasize that Musk had waived due diligence rights, making his public claim that the deal was “on hold” misleading.Musk's legal team counters that there is no proof of fraud and that expressing concerns about bots does not amount to illegal conduct. They argue Musk genuinely believed Twitter's spam numbers were inaccurate and was frustrated by the company's refusal to provide data to verify them. His lawyer also stressed that motive alone is not enough to establish fraudulent intent. Additionally, Musk ultimately declined an opportunity to renegotiate the deal at a lower price, which his attorneys say undermines the claim of a scheme. They also note that Musk reaffirmed his commitment to the deal shortly after his controversial tweet, which they argue is inconsistent with an effort to manipulate the market.The case centers on whether Musk's statements were intentionally deceptive or simply careless. Investors allege they suffered losses after Twitter's stock dropped following Musk's tweets. The jury must now decide whether his conduct meets the legal standard for securities fraud.Were Musk's Tweets ‘Deliberate' Or ‘Stupid'? Jury To Decide - Law360The Trump administration is defending the Pentagon's decision to blacklist Anthropic in a federal court dispute, arguing the move was lawful and tied to national security concerns. The designation, made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, labeled the company a supply chain risk after it refused to remove safeguards limiting the use of its AI for autonomous weapons or domestic surveillance.Government lawyers claim Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its lawsuit, rejecting the company's argument that the action violated its First Amendment rights. They argue the dispute is about conduct—specifically contract and policy disagreements—not protected speech. According to the administration, no restrictions were placed on Anthropic's ability to express its views, only on its eligibility for government contracts.Anthropic has challenged the designation in court, calling it unlawful and harmful to its business, and is seeking to block the decision while the case proceeds. The company maintains that its safety restrictions reflect responsible AI practices and do not threaten national security. It also argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures and violated its due process rights.The blacklisting, supported by Donald Trump, could limit Anthropic's access to defense contracts and potentially lead to significant financial losses. The dispute follows failed negotiations between the company and the Pentagon over acceptable uses of its technology. Anthropic is pursuing a separate legal challenge in another court to contest a broader designation that could expand the ban across the federal government.Trump administration defends Anthropic blacklisting in US court | ReutersThe Lycra Company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Texas as part of a plan to reduce about $1.2 billion in debt and transfer ownership to its senior lenders. A bankruptcy judge granted interim approval for the company to access $50 million in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, rejecting objections from a lower-level creditor who argued the lenders had too much control over the restructuring.The company entered bankruptcy with roughly $1.5 billion in total debt and a prearranged plan supported by most major lenders, who have agreed to vote in favor of the restructuring. The plan gives Lycra 45 days to confirm its reorganization and would convert different layers of debt into equity or warrants in the reorganized company.One creditor, Castleknight Master Fund, objected, claiming the same lenders were playing multiple roles—DIP financiers, major creditors, and future owners—giving them an unfair advantage. The court, however, found this overlap common in large restructurings and allowed the financing to proceed, noting objections can be raised again later.Lycra's financial struggles stem from declining earnings, increased competition, inflation, and prior debt tied to earlier ownership changes. The company has also faced legal risks related to past transactions. Despite these issues, Lycra continues to operate globally, selling its products in more than 80 countries.Spandex Maker Lycra Files Ch. 11 To Slash $1.2B Debt - Law360 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: NAACP v. AlabamaOn March 17, 1958, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in NAACP v. Alabama, a case that reshaped constitutional protections for civil rights organizations. The dispute arose when the state of Alabama sought to compel the NAACP to disclose its membership lists as part of a legal proceeding. At the time, the NAACP was deeply involved in challenging segregation laws across the South, making its members vulnerable to retaliation and harassment. Alabama argued that it had the authority to demand these records under its corporate registration laws. The NAACP refused, asserting that disclosure would violate its members' constitutional rights.The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the central question became whether forced disclosure infringed on the freedom of association. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan II emphasized that privacy in group membership was essential to preserving lawful association. The Court held that Alabama's demand posed a substantial restraint on the ability of individuals to organize and advocate collectively. It recognized that exposure of members' identities could lead to economic reprisal, loss of employment, and even physical danger.Importantly, the Court grounded its reasoning in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporating First Amendment protections against state action. This marked a significant step in expanding constitutional safeguards for civil liberties at the state level. The ruling made clear that states could not use indirect means to suppress lawful advocacy groups. It also strengthened the legal foundation for future civil rights litigation during a critical period in American history.The decision in NAACP v. Alabama remains a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence. It continues to influence cases involving anonymity, privacy, and the right to organize without undue government interference.A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked the federal government's revised childhood vaccine schedule and paused related policy actions, finding the changes likely unlawful. The court concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services departed from longstanding, science-based procedures when issuing the new recommendations. Central to the ruling was the government's apparent sidestepping of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a key expert body that has historically guided vaccine policy.The judge rejected the argument that the health secretary has near-total discretion over vaccine decisions, emphasizing that such authority is still constrained by statutory and procedural requirements. He underscored that courts can review agency actions, particularly when they appear to ignore scientific standards or established processes. The opinion was especially critical of the administration's position that its vaccine guidance was not subject to judicial review, noting that the recommendations carry real legal and practical consequences.The revised schedule itself had scaled back universal recommendations for several vaccines, instead limiting them to certain groups or requiring consultation with a doctor. The court found that these changes could significantly affect liability protections for healthcare providers and insurance coverage obligations.The ruling also raised concerns about potential violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act after the abrupt dismissal and replacement of ACIP members, many of whom reportedly lacked relevant expertise. While the court did not cancel upcoming committee meetings, it halted the appointments of new members and froze future decisions tied to the disputed process.The decision represents a significant check on the administration's approach to public health policymaking, reinforcing that agencies must follow established legal frameworks and rely on qualified expertise. An appeal is expected, and related litigation is already pending in other courts.HHS' Childhood Vaccine Policy Changes Put On Ice - Law360US judge upends Kennedy's overhaul of childhood vaccine policies | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hear arguments over whether to halt construction of a $400 million ballroom project at the White House. The dispute centers on a lawsuit brought by preservationists, who argue that the project—built on the site of the demolished East Wing—was launched without proper legal authorization. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop construction while the case proceeds.The National Trust for Historic Preservation claims that neither the president nor the National Park Service has the authority to approve such a major structural change without explicit approval from Congress. The group argues that past practice shows Congress typically authorizes significant developments on federal land in Washington.The Trump administration, however, maintains that the project is lawful and does not require specific congressional approval. Government lawyers argue that the ballroom will improve infrastructure, enhance security, and help preserve the main White House building by shifting large events elsewhere. They also contend that the plaintiffs have not met the high legal standard required for an injunction.A federal judge previously denied an earlier request to stop construction, finding the initial legal arguments insufficient. The new hearing will consider revised claims focused more directly on presidential authority and statutory limits.At this stage, the case turns on whether the plaintiffs can show both a likelihood of success on the merits and that immediate harm justifies blocking the project before a final decision is reached.US judge to weigh new bid to halt Trump's $400 million ballroom project | ReutersYou may have heard about the SAVE America Act, and given the attention it's received, it's helpful to clearly lay out what the bill actually does.The SAVE America Act would make significant changes to federal voter registration and election procedures, primarily by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill amends the National Voter Registration Act to require applicants to present documentary evidence—such as a passport, birth certificate, or certain government-issued identification—before registering to vote in federal elections. It also requires that this proof generally be provided in person, even when registering by mail, though states may create alternative processes for applicants who cannot readily produce documentation.The legislation directs states to verify citizenship status during voter registration and to establish systems for identifying and removing non-citizens from voter rolls. It encourages the use of federal and state databases, including systems maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, to confirm eligibility. Federal agencies are required to respond quickly to state requests for citizenship verification and to share relevant data across agencies.The bill further mandates that voters present a qualifying photo ID when casting a ballot in federal elections. For in-person voting, the ID must be shown at the polling place, while absentee voters must submit copies of identification with their ballots. Acceptable IDs must generally include both a photograph and an indication of U.S. citizenship, though supplemental documentation may be used in some cases.The bill would effectively bring all the convenience and ease of a trip to the DMV to the ballot box.In addition, the legislation expands enforcement mechanisms. It creates potential criminal liability for election officials who knowingly register individuals without proof of citizenship and allows private lawsuits against officials who fail to enforce the requirements. It also requires states to take ongoing steps to ensure that only eligible citizens remain registered, including removing individuals identified as non-citizens.The bill includes provisions addressing discrepancies in documentation and requires election officials to document the basis for registering individuals who lack standard proof. It also preserves the use of provisional ballots, allowing individuals to vote while their eligibility is later verified. Overall, the measure shifts the federal framework toward stricter documentation, verification, and enforcement standards tied to voter eligibility in federal elections.What is in Trump's bill that requires proof of citizenship to vote? | ReutersText - H.R.7296 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): SAVE America ActThis week, my Bloomberg Tax column examines California's recent crackdown on luxury vehicles registered in Montana to avoid sales tax. The enforcement actions reveal a deeper flaw in California's system: it relies heavily on formal delivery paperwork rather than the actual use of the vehicle. Buyers have been able to exploit this by creating the appearance of out-of-state delivery through inexpensive documentation, even when the cars never leave California. Prosecutors allege that some schemes were remarkably simple, involving little more than fabricated shipping records.The current rule allows residents to avoid sales tax if a vehicle is delivered and kept out of state for 12 months, a policy originally designed for legitimate interstate purchases. However, it has unintentionally created a market for services that help buyers simulate compliance. Entity formation companies, transporters, and storage providers all play a role in generating paperwork that masks in-state use. This has made tax avoidance both accessible and predictable.California has responded with audits, criminal prosecutions, and surveillance tools like license plate readers, but these efforts address symptoms rather than the underlying design problem. A system built on easily manipulated documentation invites abuse. Instead, the column argues that California should adopt a “primary-use” rule, taxing vehicles based on where they are actually driven and stored.Other states already apply similar approaches to aircraft, using objective data like flight logs to determine tax liability. A comparable framework for cars could rely on existing data sources such as toll records, insurance information, and registration patterns. This would allow enforcement to focus on real-world usage rather than paper compliance.Clear thresholds and penalties could further deter avoidance by making enforcement more predictable. While some buyers might still structure legitimate out-of-state ownership, the system would no longer reward purely formalistic schemes. The broader point is that tax policy should reflect economic reality, not paperwork.California's Car Sales Tax Crackdown Calls for Primary-Use Rule 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: Mississippi Ratifies 13th AmendmentOn March 16, 1995, Mississippi took an unusual step in American constitutional history by formally ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, had already become part of the Constitution in 1865 after the required number of states approved it. Mississippi, however, had originally rejected the amendment during the Reconstruction era. For more than a century afterward, the state never revisited the issue, leaving it as one of the few states that had not formally ratified the amendment.Although Mississippi's approval in 1995 had no legal effect on the validity of the amendment, it carried symbolic weight. Lawmakers described the vote as an effort to acknowledge and correct a lingering historical omission. The action highlighted how the constitutional amendment process operates: once three-fourths of the states ratify an amendment, it becomes law for the entire nation, regardless of whether every state agrees. In other words, Mississippi had been bound by the Thirteenth Amendment for 130 years before its legislature finally endorsed it.The event also reflected a broader trend in which states reconsider and symbolically ratify long-standing constitutional amendments they once opposed. Such actions often serve educational or reconciliatory purposes rather than legal ones. Mississippi's vote functioned as a public acknowledgment of the amendment's moral and constitutional importance. The late ratification became a reminder that constitutional history does not always end when an amendment is adopted. Instead, the meaning and recognition of constitutional change can continue to evolve long after the law itself is settled.President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen enforcement of “Made in America” labeling, particularly for products sold online. The order instructs the FTC to prioritize cases against companies that falsely claim their goods are made in the United States. According to the administration, many online sellers market products as American-made even when significant parts or manufacturing occur overseas. The order emphasizes that consumers should be able to rely on clear and accurate country-of-origin claims when shopping.To address the issue, the FTC has been directed to consider new regulations requiring online retailers to verify that products advertised as “Made in the USA” actually meet legal standards. If sellers fail to confirm those claims, the order states the conduct could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. Federal agencies responsible for country-of-origin labeling are also instructed to coordinate with the FTC to ensure consistent guidance for businesses. In addition, agencies involved in federal procurement must review origin claims for goods purchased through government contracts. Vendors that misrepresent product origins could be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.The order comes amid growing litigation over allegedly misleading “Made in America” marketing. Several companies have faced lawsuits claiming their branding implies domestic production even when manufacturing occurs abroad. Examples include disputes involving a coffee company accused of implying its products were American-made and lawsuits challenging origin claims for household products like aluminum foil and kitchenware. These cases highlight the legal risks companies face when marketing goods as domestically produced without meeting regulatory standards.Trump Executive Order Targets ‘Made In America' Labeling - Law360U.S. prosecutors are defending a decision to block Venezuelan government funds from being used to pay for the legal defense of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in his U.S. criminal case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing federal charges in New York related to drug trafficking and have pleaded not guilty while awaiting trial in custody.Maduro's lawyer asked a federal judge to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the U.S. Treasury Department improperly revoked an earlier sanctions exemption that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to cover his legal fees. According to the defense, Venezuelan law and tradition require the state to pay for the president's legal expenses, and blocking those funds interferes with Maduro's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.Federal prosecutors responded that the exemption allowing government funds was granted by mistake and later corrected. They argued that Maduro should not benefit from Venezuelan state money because the United States has not recognized him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela for years. Prosecutors also emphasized that he and Flores remain free to use their personal funds to hire lawyers.The dispute highlights how U.S. sanctions and foreign policy can intersect with criminal proceedings in American courts. A federal judge in Manhattan is expected to address the legal funding issue during an upcoming court hearing.US prosecutors defend block on Venezuelan state funds for Maduro's defense | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked two grand jury subpoenas connected to a Justice Department investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The subpoenas sought records about a costly renovation of the Federal Reserve's headquarters and Powell's testimony to Congress about the project. Prosecutors had opened the investigation to examine whether Powell misled lawmakers regarding the renovation's rising price tag.U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg granted the Federal Reserve Board's request to quash the subpoenas, concluding that prosecutors issued them for an improper purpose. The judge determined there was strong evidence the investigation was intended to pressure or harass Powell rather than uncover a legitimate crime. In his ruling, Boasberg noted repeated public attacks on Powell by President Donald Trump and other officials over the Federal Reserve's interest-rate policies. The court found no meaningful evidence that Powell had committed fraud or lied to Congress. The judge also pointed out that construction projects often exceed budgets and that the Fed's inspector general had already reviewed the renovation without identifying wrongdoing.The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia criticized the decision and announced plans to appeal, arguing that the ruling undermines the grand jury's ability to investigate potential crimes. Meanwhile, the decision has intensified political debate over the independence of the Federal Reserve. Some lawmakers argue the investigation threatens that independence, while others say the probe should continue. The dispute also complicates efforts to confirm a potential successor to Powell as Federal Reserve chair, whose term is set to expire soon.DC Judge Blocks Subpoenas Targeting Fed's Powell - Law360The Trump administration is opposing the federal judiciary's effort to gain independent control over its courthouse buildings, arguing that the judicial branch lacks the expertise to manage large real estate operations. The dispute centers on whether responsibility for courthouse construction, maintenance, and leasing should remain with the General Services Administration (GSA), which has long managed federal buildings for the government.In a letter to the judiciary, GSA Administrator Edward Forst criticized the proposal and warned that giving the courts full authority over their facilities could lead to increased spending and reduced oversight of taxpayer funds. He cited data showing that while the judiciary accounts for a significant share of rent paid to the GSA, courthouse facilities represent an even larger share of federal spending on major building repairs and alterations. Forst said the agency will review courthouse repair and maintenance requests to ensure funds are used appropriately.Judicial officials, however, argue that the current system has left courthouses in poor condition. The Judicial Conference recently asked Congress to allow the judiciary to take over management of certain courthouse properties, citing an estimated $8.3 billion backlog in needed repairs. Court officials say the proposal would begin with a limited transition involving only a small number of districts and major courthouse buildings.The disagreement comes amid broader tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Court leaders have also raised concerns that recent government reorganization and staffing cuts at the GSA have slowed security improvements and building maintenance at courthouses nationwide.Trump administration calls judiciary ‘ill-equipped' to manage its courthouses | 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: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | 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: SCOTUS ImpeachmentOn March 12, 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Chase, a Federalist appointed to the Court in 1796, had become a controversial figure during a period of intense political division between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Members of Congress accused him of allowing his political views to influence his conduct on the bench. Much of the criticism focused on Chase's behavior during trials brought under the Alien and Sedition Acts, where he was alleged to have treated defendants and their lawyers unfairly. The House approved several articles of impeachment claiming that Chase's courtroom conduct showed bias and undermined the impartial administration of justice.The impeachment moved to the Senate for trial in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding over the proceedings. After weeks of arguments and testimony, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for conviction on any article. As a result, Chase was acquitted and remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811. The outcome established an important precedent about the limits of impeachment as a tool against federal judges. Although Congress has the constitutional authority to impeach judges, the Chase trial suggested that impeachment should not be used simply because legislators disagree with a judge's legal or political views.In the years that followed, the case came to symbolize a commitment to judicial independence within the federal system. By declining to remove Chase from office, the Senate reinforced the idea that judges should be protected from political retaliation for their rulings. The episode remains the only time a sitting Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House of Representatives. Today, the Chase impeachment is often cited in discussions about the balance between judicial accountability and the need for an independent judiciary.A federal antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment has stalled as negotiations over a proposed settlement continue and several states resist the deal. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and numerous state attorneys general, alleges that Live Nation used monopolistic practices to dominate the live concert industry after acquiring Ticketmaster in 2010. During a recent court hearing, Arun Subramanian criticized both sides for failing to notify him earlier that settlement discussions were underway. He said the parties waited until just before trial to reveal that negotiations were close to completion, which he suggested was improper conduct.The proposed settlement would require Live Nation to allow competitors to sell tickets at some of its venues, limit certain ticket service fees to 15%, sell control of at least 13 amphitheaters, and loosen exclusivity arrangements. The company would also create a settlement fund exceeding $280 million to resolve state claims. However, attorneys general from many of the states involved have objected because the agreement does not require Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster. More than two dozen states have asked the court to declare a mistrial and restart proceedings later, though others support or are still evaluating the settlement.Judge Subramanian has not yet ruled on the mistrial request and instead urged the parties to continue negotiations immediately at the courthouse. He indicated that if a broader agreement cannot be reached soon, the court will determine the next procedural step. Live Nation maintains that the industry remains competitive and argues that the plaintiffs have selectively used data to support their allegations. The dispute highlights the complexity of resolving large antitrust cases involving both federal and state enforcement authorities.Judge Fumes As Live Nation Antitrust Trial Remains In Limbo - Law360ExxonMobil has announced plans to move its legal incorporation from New Jersey to Texas, citing the state's increasingly business-friendly legal environment. In a proxy statement to shareholders, the company explained that most of its senior leadership and corporate functions have already been located in Texas for decades, making the change largely formal rather than operational. Executives said Texas offers a more predictable, statute-based framework for corporate governance and regulation.A major factor behind the move is the creation of the Texas Business Court in 2024. Exxon also pointed to recent updates to the Texas Business Organizations Code that clarify standards for corporate decision-making and director conduct. Company leadership believes these reforms create a legal climate that supports economic growth and shareholder value.Exxon joins other companies that have relocated their corporate domicile to Texas, including Tesla and Coinbase. State officials have promoted these moves as evidence that Texas is becoming a strong alternative to traditional corporate hubs such as Delaware. Recent reforms include legislation codifying the Business Judgment Rule, which limits liability for corporate directors unless misconduct like fraud is proven.Texas has also launched broader initiatives to attract corporations, including approval for the upcoming Texas Stock Exchange, expected to begin operations in 2026. Supporters argue these efforts strengthen the state's reputation as a center for corporate formation and governance. Exxon's relocation reflects this broader trend of companies seeking jurisdictions with legal systems designed to favor corporate decision-making and reduce litigation risk.ExxonMobil Plans Move To Texas, Citing Biz-Friendly Milieu - Law360ExxonMobil Board unanimously recommends redomiciling the company from New Jersey to TexasMillions of PlayStation users have begun a major antitrust class action in the United Kingdom against Sony Interactive Entertainment, seeking about £5 billion in damages. The case is being heard before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and is expected to last around ten weeks. The lawsuit is led by consumer advocate Alex Neill, who represents millions of PlayStation customers.The claim alleges that Sony unlawfully controls the digital PlayStation ecosystem, limiting competition and forcing users to buy games and add-ons only through the company's online store. According to the plaintiffs, Sony pre-installs the PlayStation Store on its consoles and prevents users from installing alternative software or accessing other digital marketplaces. As a result, consumers allegedly become locked into Sony's platform and cannot shop for cheaper options. Lawyers for the consumers argue that these restrictions allow Sony to charge higher prices and maintain strong profit margins.A major issue in the case is how the relevant market should be defined. Sony plans to argue that its consoles and digital services operate as part of a single “systems market,” where hardware and software function as one integrated product. The plaintiffs disagree, claiming the console is only the initial purchase and that digital games and add-ons form separate “aftermarkets” where Sony exercises additional control. They argue consumers often cannot predict future costs for games or downloadable content when they buy the console, making them vulnerable to higher prices later.Sony is expected to argue that it simply created a platform that enables game publishers to sell products efficiently and that it is entitled to control access to its own storefront and intellectual property. The company maintains that these practices are legitimate business decisions rather than anticompetitive conduct. The tribunal will ultimately decide whether Sony's control of its platform amounts to unlawful market dominance under U.K. competition law.PlayStation Users Say Sony Made Them ‘Captives' In £5B Trial - Law360 UKPlayStation Officially Facing $2.7bn Lawsuit That Could Change It Forever 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