Minimum Competence

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

This Day in Legal History: Confederate States ConstitutionOn March 11, 1861, delegates of the newly formed Confederate States adopted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America in Montgomery, Alabama. The document closely resembled the United States Constitution in structure, language, and institutional design, reflecting the Confederacy's claim that it was preserving the original constitutional order rather than rebelling against it. But the similarities masked a fundamental and disturbing difference: the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected and entrenched slavery. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which used indirect language around the institution, the Confederate document openly required that slavery be recognized and protected in Confederate territories. It also prohibited any law impairing the right of property in enslaved people, making the protection of slavery a central constitutional commitment rather than a political compromise.The constitution also attempted to limit certain federal powers, reflecting long-standing Southern arguments about states' rights and suspicion of centralized authority. For example, it restricted tariffs and internal improvements, policies many Southern leaders believed favored Northern industrial interests. The document also changed the structure of the executive branch by providing for a single six-year presidential term instead of allowing reelection. These provisions were intended to prevent what Confederate leaders viewed as excessive federal power or political manipulation. Despite these structural adjustments, the document largely replicated the American constitutional framework while placing slavery at its legal core.The legal significance of the Confederate Constitution lies in how clearly it reveals the central constitutional dispute of the Civil War era. While defenders of the Confederacy often framed secession as a fight over federalism or states' rights, the constitutional text itself makes clear that preserving slavery was a primary objective. By embedding the protection of slavery directly into its governing charter, the Confederacy transformed the defense of human bondage into a foundational legal principle. The document therefore stands as a stark example of how constitutional law can be used not only to secure liberty, but also to entrench injustice.Federal judicial officials announced plans to speed up development of a new electronic case management system after a major cyber breach exposed weaknesses in the courts' existing technology. The decision was discussed during a closed meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's main policymaking body, held at the U.S. Supreme Court building. Judge Michael Scudder, who leads the conference's information technology committee, said recent cyber intrusions made it clear that modernization can no longer proceed at its previous pace. The breach, disclosed in July 2025, raised concerns that foreign actors may have accessed sensitive materials, including sealed files and information about confidential informants. The incident followed an earlier cybersecurity breach involving the federal courts in 2020.In response, the judiciary plans to begin testing components of the upgraded system in six courts during 2026. Officials hope to begin rolling out parts of the new system to federal district courts nationwide next year. Appellate and bankruptcy courts would receive updates afterward. Judiciary leaders now expect that most of the modernization work could be completed within two to three years, a faster timeline than originally planned. The project also aims to improve the search tools used in PACER, the public database that allows users to access federal court filings. Despite long-standing criticism from lawmakers and transparency advocates, the judiciary does not currently plan to eliminate PACER's user fees. Court officials say those fees provide roughly 85 percent of the funding for the modernization effort.US judiciary to fast-track court records system upgrade after hacking | ReutersFederal and state lawmakers are considering measures that could reshape lawsuits involving the weedkiller Roundup as Bayer continues to face large-scale litigation over the product. In Kansas, legislators debated a bill supported by Bayer that would prevent individuals from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn that their products might cause cancer or other illnesses. The proposal is part of a broader legislative strategy by the company, which has supported similar bills in roughly a dozen states. These efforts come as Bayer prepares a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving most of the roughly 65,000 remaining lawsuits alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Bayer inherited the litigation when it purchased Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018. Since then, the company has faced extensive legal costs and large verdicts, contributing to significant financial losses. Supporters of the Kansas bill argue that without such protections, pesticide manufacturers might remove widely used products from the market or raise prices, which could affect farmers and agricultural businesses. Critics, however, question the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Roundup—is unlikely to cause cancer and argue the legislation would shield companies from accountability.The debate is occurring alongside other legal developments. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April about whether federal pesticide law requires Bayer to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. Meanwhile, members of Congress are considering a farm bill provision that would require uniform pesticide labels nationwide, preventing states or local governments from mandating warnings different from those approved by the EPA. A Missouri judge has also given preliminary approval to Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, with a final decision expected later this year.Bayer takes its multi-front battle on pesticide liability to Kansas | ReutersA federal judge in Manhattan is set to review a proposed agreement that would end the U.S. government's criminal prosecution of Turkey's state-owned Halkbank. The case accused the bank of helping Iran bypass U.S. economic sanctions through financial transactions. Prosecutors and the bank reached a deferred prosecution agreement, which would pause the case while the bank demonstrates compliance with new restrictions. Under the proposal, Halkbank must avoid transactions benefiting Iran and hire an independent monitor to review its sanctions and anti-money-laundering controls.The agreement does not require the bank to pay a fine or admit wrongdoing. If Halkbank complies with the conditions, the criminal charges would likely be dismissed after the monitoring period. Prosecutors have asked the judge to pause the proceedings for 90 days so the bank can begin demonstrating compliance. Although judges generally have limited authority to reject deferred prosecution agreements, the court may still review the deal to ensure it follows established legal precedent.The resolution could ease tensions between the United States and Turkey, which had been strained by the case. U.S. officials indicated that resolving the prosecution also carried diplomatic importance during negotiations related to Turkey's role in securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2025. The announcement of the deal caused Halkbank's share price to rise sharply. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had previously criticized the case as politically motivated.Judge to weigh Halkbank, US prosecutors' resolution to criminal case | 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: Blue Sky LawsOn March 10, 1911, Kansas enacted the first “blue sky law” in the United States, marking a significant development in the regulation of securities markets. The statute was designed to protect investors from fraudulent investment schemes that had become increasingly common in the early twentieth century. At the time, promoters frequently sold speculative securities with little oversight and few consequences if the ventures failed. Kansas lawmakers responded by creating a system that required securities offerings to be reviewed before they could be sold to the public. State officials were given authority to examine proposed investments and determine whether they were legitimate.The name “blue sky law” reflected the legislature's concern that many promoters were selling investments backed by nothing more than empty promises. Lawmakers wanted to prevent the sale of securities that had no real value or financial foundation. Kansas banking commissioner Joseph Norman Dolley played a central role in advocating for the law and persuading the legislature to adopt stronger investor protections. His efforts reflected growing public concern about financial fraud and the need for government oversight of securities markets.The Kansas statute quickly became a model for other states. Within a few years, many states adopted their own versions of blue sky laws, creating a patchwork system of state-level securities regulation. These laws helped establish the principle that governments could require disclosure and review before securities were sold to the public. The idea later influenced the development of federal securities regulation during the New Deal era. In particular, the framework helped shape the Securities Act of 1933, which created nationwide disclosure requirements for securities offerings.Live Nation Entertainment has reached a proposed settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in a major antitrust case challenging the company's dominance in concert promotion and ticketing. The agreement was disclosed during a court hearing and could resolve part of a lawsuit brought by federal regulators and more than two dozen states. Live Nation is also negotiating separately with state attorneys general in an effort to reach a broader nationwide resolution of related claims.Under the proposed deal, the company would pay roughly $200 million in damages to participating states and accept structural reforms aimed at reducing its market power. Regulators had argued that Live Nation's control of venues, artist promotion, and ticketing—particularly through Ticketmaster—allowed the company to inflate prices and limit competition. The lawsuit was filed in 2024 and initially sought to break up the company by forcing a sale of Ticketmaster.The settlement instead focuses on changing how the ticketing market operates. Ticketmaster would be required to open parts of its technology platform to competing ticket sellers, allowing third-party companies to list tickets directly through its system. The deal would also limit the length of Live Nation's exclusive contracts with venues to four years and permit venues to allocate some ticket inventory to rival platforms.The case gained political attention after widespread complaints about long online queues and high prices during the 2022 Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticket sales. A federal judge had allowed the antitrust case to proceed to trial after rejecting Live Nation's attempt to dismiss it earlier this year. If finalized, the settlement would impose oversight and competition requirements on the company rather than break it up.Live Nation reaches settlement with DOJ in antitrust case | ReutersDemocratic U.S. senators plan to introduce legislation that would extend the time prosecutors have to bring foreign bribery cases from five years to ten. The proposal, called the FCPA Reinforcement Act, is led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin along with several other Democratic lawmakers. It responds to recent Justice Department decisions to scale back enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a 1977 law that prohibits companies operating in the United States from bribing foreign officials.Supporters of the bill argue that international corruption investigations are complex and often take years to uncover, making the current five-year statute of limitations too short. The proposed law would temporarily extend the deadline for bringing anti-bribery charges to ten years for an eight-year period. Lawmakers say the change is meant to ensure companies can still be held accountable for misconduct even if enforcement priorities shift.The proposal also signals to corporations that compliance obligations remain important despite the current enforcement slowdown. Some legal experts worry that reduced federal enforcement could lead companies to scale back anti-corruption compliance programs or stop voluntarily reporting violations. Although the bill may face difficulty passing in the current Congress, it indicates that some lawmakers want to preserve strong anti-bribery enforcement and may pursue stricter oversight in the future.US lawmakers plan bill allowing 10 years to bring bribery cases | ReutersA divided federal appeals court has refused to allow the Trump administration to end immigration protections for more than 350,000 Haitians living in the United States. In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to pause a lower court ruling that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Haiti's Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The ruling means the protections will remain in place while the administration continues its appeal.TPS is a humanitarian program that allows people from certain countries facing crises—such as armed conflict, natural disasters, or political instability—to remain in the United States temporarily and obtain work authorization. Haitians first received TPS after the devastating 2010 earthquake, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed because of ongoing instability in the country.The Trump administration sought to end Haiti's TPS designation as part of a broader effort to scale back the program, arguing that it was never intended to function as long-term legal status. But a federal district judge previously ruled that the government's attempt to terminate the protection likely violated both TPS procedures and constitutional equal-protection principles. The appeals court majority agreed that sending Haitian migrants back now could expose them to severe violence and humanitarian risks due to Haiti's deteriorating conditions.One judge dissented, arguing the case was legally similar to disputes where courts allowed the administration to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. The Department of Homeland Security said it plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, the decision preserves legal status and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants while the litigation continues.Trump cannot end protections for 350,000 Haitians, US appeals court rules | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week examines the surprising milestone that renewable energy generated 26% of U.S. electricity in 2025—even as federal clean-energy incentives were being rolled back. At first glance, that record share might suggest the transition to renewables is unstoppable. In reality, much of the current growth reflects investment decisions made years earlier, when generous subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and related policies were still in place. Large wind and solar projects often take three to seven years to move from financing and permitting to full operation. That means many facilities coming online today were funded under a very different policy environment than the one developers face now.Recent changes to federal tax policy have scaled back or eliminated several incentives that previously supported renewable development and electric vehicle adoption. These changes do not immediately halt construction, but they alter the financial calculations for the next generation of projects. Renewable energy projects rely heavily on financing structures that incorporate tax credits, equity partnerships, and long-term debt. When incentives shrink or become uncertain, developers must either accept greater risk or secure more expensive capital. At the same time, unresolved federal rulemaking and regulatory uncertainty are adding another layer of caution for investors. Although wind and solar technology costs have declined and can remain competitive with fossil fuels, policy instability can still erode project margins.The key point is that energy statistics describe what is already built, while investment decisions determine what the energy system will look like years from now. Current renewable growth may therefore reflect past policy rather than present conditions. Financing data already shows signs of slowing investment in green energy. To maintain steady development, policymakers should avoid abrupt tax-credit expirations and instead adopt predictable, multi-year phaseouts that allow markets to adjust. Agencies could also reduce uncertainty by finalizing or withdrawing proposed energy regulations within clear timelines. Stable rules make it easier for investors to commit capital to projects designed to operate for decades. The next investment cycle will reveal whether today's policy environment supports continued energy expansion or discourages it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: The AmistadOn March 9, 1841, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. The Amistad, ruling that a group of Africans who had seized control of the Spanish ship La Amistad were free individuals who had been illegally enslaved. The case began after the captives, led by Sengbe Pieh—often called Cinqué—revolted against the ship's crew while being transported from Cuba in 1839. They had originally been kidnapped in West Africa and sold into slavery in violation of international agreements banning the transatlantic slave trade. After the revolt, the ship was intercepted near Long Island and the Africans were taken into U.S. custody. Spanish officials demanded that the United States return both the ship and the captives to Cuba. The U.S. government supported Spain's request, arguing that the captives were property under Spanish law.Abolitionists rallied to the Africans' defense and secured legal representation for them in American courts. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where former President John Quincy Adams joined the legal team arguing for the captives' freedom. Adams delivered a lengthy and passionate argument emphasizing natural rights and the illegality of the slave trade that had brought the Africans to Cuba. Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph Story concluded that the captives had been unlawfully enslaved and were therefore not property. Because they were free individuals, the Court held that they had the legal right to resist their captivity and fight for their liberty. The Court ordered that the Africans be released rather than returned to Spanish authorities.The ruling was celebrated by abolitionists as an important moral and legal victory in the fight against slavery. Although it did not end slavery in the United States, the decision demonstrated that courts could recognize limits on the slave trade and acknowledge the legal claims of enslaved people.Thirteen major U.S. book publishers have filed a copyright lawsuit against Anna's Archive, a website they describe as one of the largest “shadow libraries” distributing pirated books and academic papers. The publishers—including HarperCollins, Wiley, McGraw Hill, and Cengage—filed the complaint in federal court in New York, alleging that the site hosts more than 63 million books and 95 million research papers without authorization. According to the lawsuit, Anna's Archive allows users to download these materials directly or through torrent networks, making copyrighted works widely available for free. The publishers claim the site openly presents itself as a pirate platform and intentionally violates copyright law.The complaint also alleges that Anna's Archive was created in 2022 after copying entire collections from other illegal book repositories and has continued expanding its database. The publishers say the site operates anonymously and frequently changes domain names across different countries to avoid enforcement efforts. They further claim the platform targets artificial intelligence developers by offering large datasets of books and papers. While free users can access files slowly, the complaint states that faster downloads are available to users who make donations through untraceable methods like cryptocurrency or gift cards. The publishers allege that these donations can reach roughly $200,000 for high-speed bulk access. In response, the plaintiffs are asking the court to shut down the site and award statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work.The lawsuit follows a separate case brought by Atlantic Recording Corp., which earlier obtained a preliminary injunction preventing Anna's Archive from distributing millions of music files allegedly copied from Spotify. That case resulted in a default after the site failed to respond to the complaint. However, the publishers argue that the earlier injunction does not cover books, allowing the alleged book piracy to continue. The Association of American Publishers has publicly supported the lawsuit, describing the scale of digital piracy as extremely large and urging legal action to stop the operation.Publishers Sue ‘Shadow Library' For ‘Staggering' Book Piracy - Law360Companies that operate in California are facing uncertainty as the state moves forward with major climate disclosure laws while a federal appeals court considers whether the rules should be blocked. The laws—California Senate Bills 253 and 261—require large companies doing business in the state to disclose information about greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In late February, the California Air Resources Board approved initial regulations explaining how the reporting system will be administered and how companies will pay implementation fees. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit has temporarily blocked enforcement of S.B. 261 and is reviewing a request from business groups to halt both laws entirely.Because of this parallel regulatory and legal process, many companies are unsure whether they should invest heavily in compliance or wait for the courts to rule. S.B. 253 applies to companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and requires reporting of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, which include direct emissions, energy-related emissions, and emissions from supply chains. S.B. 261 applies to companies with more than $500 million in revenue and requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Attorneys say collecting this data could be difficult, especially for companies that only have limited operations in California or that must gather information from suppliers and partners in other regions.The reporting requirements could also affect businesses outside California because companies subject to the law may need emissions data from their partners and vendors. Regulators have begun setting deadlines for initial reporting, including an August deadline for certain emissions data, but many details about how the system will function remain unresolved. Meanwhile, business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue the laws violate the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak on controversial issues related to climate change. With rulemaking still underway and litigation ongoing, companies are left trying to prepare for possible compliance while waiting to see whether the courts ultimately uphold or invalidate the laws.Companies In Limbo Over Calif. Climate Disclosure Laws' Fate - Law360In a major California bellwether trial over claims that social media harms children's mental health, the plaintiff has finished presenting her case against Instagram and YouTube. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old referred to as Kaley G.M. to protect her identity, alleges that features on the platforms contributed to anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia she experienced as a minor. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, chose not to call Kaley's mother to testify live, instead presenting a brief portion of her deposition to the jury. The decision appeared partly influenced by strict time limits imposed by the judge during the trial. In the deposition testimony, the mother acknowledged she had little knowledge of her daughter's social media use and did not monitor her phone because she viewed it similarly to a household landline.Defense attorneys have argued that Kaley's mental health problems were caused by difficulties at home rather than the platforms themselves. Evidence introduced at trial suggested the plaintiff had conflicts with her mother, including allegations of neglect, verbal abuse, and limited supervision of internet use. The defense also pointed to bullying and other personal issues as alternative explanations for the plaintiff's struggles. Meanwhile, a former Meta employee testified that internal company information suggested Instagram could be addictive and harmful to young users, although defense lawyers challenged his credibility and the extent of his involvement with safety issues.The plaintiff's final expert witness discussed ways social media companies could design safer platforms for children. After the plaintiff rested, Meta began presenting its defense with testimony from school administrators connected to the plaintiff. The case is the first bellwether trial among thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in California, with outcomes potentially shaping settlement negotiations and future trials. TikTok and Snap previously settled with this plaintiff, but the broader litigation against social media companies continues.Meta, Google Begin Defense As Mental Harm Plaintiff Rests - Law360 UKThe U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency told a federal trade court that it expects to create a system within about 45 days to process refunds for tariffs that were previously imposed under President Donald Trump and later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The tariffs generated roughly $166 billion in payments from about 330,000 importers, and the Court's decision did not specify how those funds should be returned. As a result, government lawyers and a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade are working to establish a practical process for issuing refunds.Under the proposed plan, importers would submit a declaration through CBP's electronic system detailing the tariffs they paid. The agency would verify the information and then issue a single payment from the Treasury Department to each importer, including interest. Officials say this approach would avoid forcing businesses to file individual lawsuits to recover their money. The judge overseeing the matter recently modified an earlier order that required immediate refunds, acknowledging that the agency needs time to build a workable system.CBP explained that its current administrative system cannot automatically process refunds on the massive scale required. Importers paid tariffs on more than 53 million shipments, and manually reviewing each transaction could require millions of hours of labor. Several large companies, including affiliates of Nintendo and CVS, have already filed lawsuits seeking repayment, though the government hopes a broader refund system will resolve claims more efficiently.Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have supported the proposal, saying it could simplify the process for smaller companies. However, officials noted that relatively few importers have registered for the electronic refund system created earlier this year. The court continues to oversee the development of the refund process through a test case that could guide how payments are returned to all affected businesses.US customs agency expects tariff refund system to be ready in 45 days | 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: FDR Declares Bank HolidayOn March 6, 1933, just two days after taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank holiday in response to the escalating financial panic of the Great Depression. At the time, banks across the country were collapsing as frightened depositors rushed to withdraw their savings. The closures threatened to completely destabilize the American financial system. Roosevelt used emergency executive authority to temporarily shut down the nation's banks in order to stop the flood of withdrawals. The pause allowed federal officials to inspect financial institutions and determine which were stable enough to reopen.Although the order began as an executive action, Congress quickly moved to support the president's efforts. On March 9, lawmakers passed the Emergency Banking Act, which retroactively approved Roosevelt's bank holiday and expanded federal oversight of banks. The law allowed only financially sound banks to resume operations and provided additional confidence to depositors. In the days that followed, many banks reopened under stricter supervision, and public trust gradually returned to the banking system. Roosevelt reinforced this confidence through his first “fireside chat,” explaining the reforms directly to the American public.Legal challenges later tested the government's authority to take such sweeping action during a crisis. Courts ultimately upheld many emergency financial measures adopted during the early New Deal period. These rulings helped establish the principle that the federal government has broader power to respond to national economic emergencies. The bank holiday of March 6, 1933, therefore became an important early example of how executive initiative and congressional support can combine to address a national crisis.An insurer has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after its AI chatbot allegedly provided faulty legal assistance to a disability benefits recipient. According to the complaint, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America had settled a long-term disability dispute with Graciela Dela Torre in January 2024. About a year later, she questioned the agreement and asked her attorney about reopening the case due to alleged documentation problems. When her lawyer explained that the settlement was final, Dela Torre consulted ChatGPT, asking whether her attorney had dismissed her concerns.The insurer claims the chatbot suggested that her attorney had invalidated her feelings and deflected responsibility. After receiving that response, Dela Torre fired her lawyer and attempted to reopen the case on her own. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT generated legal arguments asserting that her former counsel had pressured her into signing a blank signature page. She filed a motion based on those arguments, which Nippon says violated the settlement agreement releasing the company from future claims.According to the complaint, Dela Torre then submitted numerous additional filings drafted with the chatbot's help, including more than twenty motions and other court documents. The court rejected her attempt to reopen the case and upheld the settlement as valid. Despite that ruling, she allegedly used ChatGPT again to prepare a new lawsuit asserting claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with disability benefits. Nippon says she has filed dozens of motions that serve no legitimate legal purpose, forcing the company to spend significant time responding. The insurer is now seeking damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI from providing legal assistance to Dela Torre, while OpenAI has dismissed the claims as meritless.OpenAI Practices Law Without A License, Insurer Alleges - Law360A coalition of 24 states has filed a lawsuit challenging new global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade and seeks to block tariffs introduced on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the administration rushed to impose the tariffs only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier set of trade measures that had been issued under a different statute. According to the complaint, the new tariffs were an attempt to revive similar trade restrictions using a separate legal authority.The policy first imposed a 10% tariff on imports worldwide and was raised to the statute's maximum 15% the following day. The administration justified the move by claiming it was necessary to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits. However, the states argue that such deficits do not actually exist and that the government selectively relied on negative data while ignoring overall positive financial inflows. They claim this misuse of the statute mirrors the earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.The lawsuit also argues that the tariffs violate the Constitution because the authority to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court recently emphasized this principle when it ruled against the administration's earlier tariff policy. According to the states, Section 122 was originally enacted to address problems tied to an outdated international currency system that no longer exists today. Because the statutory conditions cannot be met, the coalition argues the president's tariffs are unlawful. The states are asking the court to invalidate the measures before they remain in effect through the summer.Two Dozen States Sue Trump to Halt New Global Tariffs - Law360Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs | ReutersA federal trade judge is meeting privately with government lawyers to determine how the United States will refund billions of dollars in tariffs that courts recently ruled unconstitutional. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled the closed-door meeting as a settlement conference to discuss a practical process for returning money to importers. The tariffs at issue were a major part of President Donald Trump's trade policy but were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February for exceeding presidential authority. Because the Court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, lower courts are now working to establish a workable procedure.The scale of the refunds could be enormous, potentially reaching $175 billion and affecting more than 300,000 importers. Government attorneys have warned that processing the reimbursements will be unusually complex because it may involve manual review of tens of millions of tariff payments. Many of the affected importers are small businesses concerned about the cost and administrative burden of seeking repayment. Judge Eaton has indicated that he wants a system that avoids forcing companies to file individual lawsuits.The issue arose in a case filed by Atmus Filtration Inc., which claims it paid $11 million in unlawful tariffs. Eaton recently ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin using its internal processes to refund tariffs not only to Atmus but potentially to all affected importers. The upcoming conference is expected to focus on how the agency can efficiently review roughly 79 million shipments and distribute refunds. Attorneys involved in related cases believe the meeting could lead to a standardized process that allows most businesses to receive reimbursements without extended litigation.Exclusive: US judge to meet parties on Trump-tariff refunds in closed-door ‘settlement conference' | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, reversing most of a lower court decision that had blocked the policy. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges concluded that federal law gives the president broad power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he believes it serves national interests. As a result, the panel allowed Trump's halt of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to remain in place.The policy was introduced shortly after Trump took office in 2025 and paused the admission of refugees while the administration reviewed whether the program ensured proper assimilation. Refugees, their family members, and several resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the move. A federal judge in Seattle had previously issued injunctions blocking the suspension and related actions. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that most of those rulings exceeded the district court's authority.Writing for the panel, Judge Jay Bybee acknowledged that the decision could have serious real-world consequences for thousands of refugees who had already completed years of vetting and were awaiting resettlement. Despite those concerns, the court emphasized that Congress granted the president sweeping authority over immigration entry decisions. The judges said policy judgments about refugee admissions belong to the executive branch rather than the courts.The panel did leave some portions of the lower court's order in place. It upheld injunctions that prevent the government from cutting services to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States and from terminating certain agreements with refugee support organizations. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the district court's injunctions should have been entirely overturned.Trump can suspend refugee admissions, US appeals court rules | 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: Boston MassacreOn March 5, 1770, a confrontation between British soldiers and American colonists in Boston turned deadly in what became known as the Boston Massacre. Tensions had been rising for months as British troops occupied the city to enforce parliamentary taxes that many colonists believed were unjust. On that evening, a crowd gathered near the Boston Custom House and began taunting a British sentry, shouting insults and throwing snowballs and debris. As the situation escalated, additional soldiers arrived to support the guard, but the crowd continued to press in. In the confusion and fear of the moment, the soldiers fired into the crowd. Five colonists were killed and several others were wounded, including Crispus Attucks, who is often remembered as the first casualty of the American Revolution.The incident quickly became a flashpoint in colonial politics, with patriot leaders using it as evidence of British tyranny. Yet the legal response that followed was notable for its commitment to due process despite intense public anger. British Captain Thomas Preston and eight soldiers were arrested and charged with murder. Future president John Adams agreed to defend the soldiers, arguing that the rule of law required even deeply unpopular defendants to receive a fair trial. During the proceedings, Adams emphasized the evidence suggesting the soldiers had been surrounded and threatened by a hostile crowd. The jury ultimately acquitted six soldiers and convicted two of the lesser charge of manslaughter.The trials demonstrated an early American commitment to the principle that legal judgments should be guided by evidence rather than public pressure, even during moments of political upheaval.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey cannot use sovereign immunity to protect New Jersey Transit from personal injury lawsuits filed by riders injured outside the state. The unanimous opinion, written by Sonia Sotomayor, resolved a conflict between the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals over whether the transit agency qualifies as an “arm of the state.” The dispute arose from two lawsuits filed by passengers injured in NJ Transit bus crashes that occurred outside New Jersey.The justices focused heavily on how the agency was structured. During oral argument, several members of the Court questioned why New Jersey created NJ Transit as a corporation with the ability to sue and be sued while also disclaiming responsibility for its debts. Some justices suggested those design choices undermined the state's argument that the agency should receive sovereign immunity protections.New Jersey's lawyers argued that the agency's independence is largely formal and that the governor maintains significant control over the system. They also warned that allowing such lawsuits could subject the state to litigation in other states' courts. However, the Court appeared unconvinced by those arguments and emphasized that the plaintiffs were private individuals seeking compensation rather than other states trying to regulate New Jersey.The ruling ultimately sided with the New York court's earlier decision and overturned the Pennsylvania ruling, allowing the personal injury lawsuits to proceed.Supreme Court Rejects NJ Immunity Defense In NY, Pa. SuitsRegulators are increasingly focusing on dynamic or algorithmic pricing, a practice that uses personal data—such as location, browsing history, and purchasing behavior—to set individualized prices for consumers. The approach has raised concerns among privacy and consumer protection regulators because it relies on large amounts of personal data and may affect price transparency. Although grocery pricing has drawn the most attention, the practice is also used in industries like travel, financial services, and online retail.The Federal Trade Commission has been studying the issue but has not clearly stated whether dynamic pricing violates any specific federal law. In 2024, the agency issued subpoenas to companies that develop pricing algorithms to learn how they collect consumer data, train their systems, and influence the prices consumers see. A preliminary research summary released in 2025 confirmed that these tools rely heavily on consumer data and can adjust prices in real time, but it did not identify specific legal violations.While the federal approach remains uncertain, state regulators are taking more direct action. The office of Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, launched an investigative sweep in January 2026 to examine how companies use consumer data to personalize prices. Investigators sent letters to retailers, grocery stores, and hotels requesting information about pricing algorithms, data sources, and disclosures to consumers.Meanwhile, the New York Attorney General's Office is investigating companies' compliance with the state's new Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act. The law requires businesses to clearly inform consumers when prices are generated using algorithms that rely on their personal data. Regulators have warned that disclosures hidden behind hyperlinks may not satisfy the law's requirement that notices be clear and conspicuous.Other states are considering similar legislation, including proposals targeting surveillance-based pricing or banning dynamic pricing in certain industries. As scrutiny increases, companies that use personalized pricing tools are being urged to review their data practices, pricing disclosures, and compliance with emerging state privacy laws.Amidst uncertainty from FTC, states zero in on dynamic and algorithmic pricing | ReutersThe U.S. civilian federal workforce decreased by about 12% between September 2024 and January 2026, according to newly released government data. The reductions reflect efforts by Donald Trump's administration to shrink federal agencies, a policy he promoted as a way to reduce government size and increase efficiency.Several major departments experienced significant staffing losses. The U.S. Department of the Treasury saw its workforce drop by roughly 24%, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lost about 20% of its employees during the same period. These reductions represent some of the largest declines across federal agencies.One notable exception was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which slightly increased its workforce by less than 1%. The agency's growth reflects the administration's continued focus on immigration enforcement and deportation efforts.Overall, the data indicates that the administration's push to cut federal staffing has had a broad impact across much of the government, significantly reducing the number of civilian employees in many departments.US government workforce shrunk by 12% since September 2024 | 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's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful 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: Tenth Circuit ActOn March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1863, quietly reshaping the structure of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of the Civil War. The Act increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten. This expansion created an additional seat that President Abraham Lincoln could fill at a critical moment in the nation's history. Lincoln soon appointed Justice Stephen J. Field to occupy the new position.The timing of the law was not accidental. The country was deeply divided, and major constitutional questions about executive power, wartime authority, and civil liberties were moving through the courts. By enlarging the Court, Congress ensured that Lincoln would have greater influence over the judiciary's direction. Although altering the size of the Court was constitutional, it carried clear political implications.The Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Instead, Congress has authority to determine the Court's size through legislation. This structural flexibility has allowed lawmakers to adjust the Court in response to political and practical concerns. The Judiciary Act of 1863 stands as one example of how institutional design can intersect with national crisis.The legal element worth highlighting is Congress's constitutional power to set the size of the Supreme Court. Article III establishes the Court but leaves its structure largely to Congress. This separation of powers detail is significant because it shows that the judiciary's composition is not self-defining. I chose this element because it explains how a simple statute, passed during wartime, could alter the balance of influence within the highest court in the country without amending the Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case arose after federal prosecutors charged Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana use, with unlawful gun possession under the Gun Control Act. A lower court dismissed the charge, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, concluding there was no historical basis for disarming a sober person who was not under the influence at the time of possession.The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the restriction is comparable to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm habitual drunkards. Hemani, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that regular marijuana users are not historically analogous to those groups and that the statute is too vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an “unlawful user.”The dispute comes as the Court continues to apply the history-focused test it announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case also echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute, though he was later pardoned. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has recently taken an expansive view of gun rights and is weighing multiple challenges to firearm regulations.US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users | ReutersA recent policy shift by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given public companies greater control over which shareholder proposals appear on annual meeting ballots. In November, the agency stopped its long-standing practice of having staff formally review and approve companies' decisions to exclude certain proposals. Instead, corporate executives now have more discretion to determine what goes into proxy statements.Investor advocates say the change has created confusion and weakened shareholder rights, especially in disputes involving environmental, social, and governance issues. The new approach has already led to lawsuits against companies including PepsiCo, AT&T, and Axon Enterprise. In several instances, companies initially declined to include shareholder proposals but reversed course after being sued. For example, PepsiCo agreed to allow a vote on an animal-welfare proposal shortly after litigation was filed. AT&T similarly settled a lawsuit brought by New York City pension funds by permitting a vote on workforce diversity disclosures.Other disputes remain pending, including a case against Axon over a proposal related to political contributions. Activists argue that without clearer guidance from regulators, shareholders must turn to the courts to protect their ability to file resolutions. Despite concerns that the rule change would dramatically increase exclusions, early data suggests companies have blocked proposals at roughly the same rate as in prior years.Trump's SEC gave companies more power over investors. Lawsuits pushed them back | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, leaving intact a lower court ruling that works created solely by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. The decision lets stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only human authors can register copyrighted works.Thaler sought protection for a two-dimensional image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. He argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly require human authorship and that the agency improperly read that limitation into the statute. The D.C. Circuit rejected that claim, reasoning that multiple provisions of the law assume an author is a human being, particularly sections dealing with lifespan and inheritance rights.Thaler also contended that, as the system's owner and programmer, he should qualify for copyright under work-for-hire principles or property law concepts. The government responded that a valid work-for-hire arrangement requires a written agreement and cannot apply to a nonhuman creator. This dispute echoes Thaler's earlier, unsuccessful effort to secure patent rights for an AI-generated invention, which the Supreme Court also declined to review in 2023.Justices Reject Appeal Over Copyright For AI-Created Art - 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: Jones ActOn March 2, 1920, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, the statute reflected a national effort to strengthen the United States' merchant marine fleet. Lawmakers believed that a robust domestic shipping industry was essential to both economic growth and national defense. The Act required that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by Americans. Senator Wesley L. Jones sponsored the measure, arguing that reliance on foreign ships posed strategic risks.The law reshaped American maritime commerce for decades. By limiting coastwise trade to qualifying vessels, Congress sought to ensure a steady demand for American shipyards and maritime labor. Supporters have long maintained that the Act protects domestic jobs and guarantees a ready fleet in times of war or national emergency. Critics, however, argue that the restrictions reduce competition and raise shipping costs. Those higher costs are often felt most sharply in non-contiguous states and territories such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii, which depend heavily on maritime transport.Over time, the Jones Act has generated extensive litigation and recurring legislative proposals for reform or repeal. Courts have been called upon to interpret its scope, exemptions, and application to modern shipping practices. More than a century after its passage, the statute remains a focal point in debates over free trade, federal power, and national security.President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence products from Anthropic after the company declined to support certain military applications. The dispute arose when Anthropic said it would not provide its technology for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems. Trump accused the company of trying to impose its own political views on the Department of Defense and claimed its stance threatened national security. Shortly after the president's directive, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that military contractors and partners could no longer conduct business with Anthropic. The Defense Department said it would phase out the company's technology within six months while transitioning to another provider.Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had stated that while AI can support lawful foreign intelligence efforts, mass surveillance of Americans raises serious civil liberties concerns. He also argued that fully autonomous weapons lack the reliability and oversight needed to ensure responsible use. According to Anthropic, the Defense Department required contractors to agree to “any lawful use” of AI systems, including applications the company views as risky. The government also threatened to label Anthropic a national security “supply chain risk,” a designation the company says is usually reserved for foreign adversaries. Anthropic maintains that such a move would be legally questionable and has pledged to challenge it in court. The company further argues that any formal designation would likely apply only to government contract work, not to all commercial activity.Trump Tells Federal Agencies To Drop ‘Woke' Anthropic Tech - Law360Trump admin blacklists Anthropic; AI firm refuses Pentagon demandsOpenAI has completed a massive $110 billion funding round that values the company at $730 billion. The investment was led by Amazon with a $50 billion contribution, while Nvidia and SoftBank each committed $30 billion. The deal was advised by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz on behalf of OpenAI.As part of the transaction, OpenAI also entered into a strategic cloud partnership with Amazon and secured access to Nvidia's next-generation graphics processing units to expand its AI capabilities. The company said additional investors may join the round as it continues. OpenAI highlighted that more than 9 million paying business customers use ChatGPT, alongside roughly 900 million weekly active users.The funding reflects the accelerating competition among major technology companies to build AI infrastructure, including cloud systems, chips, and data centers. Amazon has already announced plans to invest about $200 billion in AI-related capital spending next year. Across the tech sector, companies such as Meta Platforms and Alphabet Inc. are also committing hundreds of billions of dollars to AI development. OpenAI described the moment as an infrastructure race, emphasizing that scaling capacity quickly will determine leadership in the industry.Wachtell Lipton Steers OpenAI On $110B Amazon-Led Funding - Law360A Los Angeles trial judge warned members of the press that she may impose a gag order in the high-profile social media bellwether case involving claims that major platforms harmed a young user's mental health. Carolyn B. Kuhl said a news report appeared to reference juror conversations overheard in a courthouse hallway, which she viewed as a violation of her directive to keep distance from jurors. She emphasized that preserving the integrity of the proceedings is critical and stated she would hold a hearing on a gag order if necessary.The case, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first bellwether trial among more than 1,000 consolidated lawsuits. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., alleges that platforms such as Meta Platforms Inc.'s Instagram and Google LLC's YouTube used addictive design features that contributed to her mental health struggles. The judge has repeatedly instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume media coverage, and she has taken steps to physically separate them from reporters and the public. She also restricted any physical descriptions of the plaintiff because her claims relate to harm suffered as a minor.Tensions over courtroom conduct have surfaced before. The judge previously warned attendees about unauthorized recordings and removed a plaintiffs' attorney from a leadership role for filming inside the courthouse. Meanwhile, the trial has included testimony from the plaintiff and expert witnesses who argue that social media addiction is real and harmful. The defendants maintain that other factors, including family dynamics, contributed to her condition. With additional trials planned, the outcome of this bellwether proceeding could influence settlement discussions and expose the companies to significant financial liability.Social Media Trial Judge Threatens Media With Gag Order - Law360Improper juror access in social media case, judge warns mediaA juror in the recent trial of Thomas Goldstein said the defendant's own testimony was a turning point in the case that led to his conviction on multiple tax and mortgage fraud charges. The juror described Goldstein's time on the stand as polished but theatrical, suggesting it felt more like a performance than a candid explanation. Goldstein had argued that errors in his tax filings stemmed from bookkeeping mistakes and reliance on outside accountants, and he claimed he overstated certain gambling winnings. Prosecutors, however, alleged that he intentionally failed to report millions in income, improperly deducted personal expenses, and misrepresented debts on mortgage applications.The jury convicted him on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion and mortgage fraud, while acquitting him on several charges tied to later tax years. He has been ordered to remain under home confinement pending sentencing. According to the juror, the government's extensive documentary evidence — including bank records, emails, and text messages — ultimately carried significant weight. Testimony about Goldstein's spending habits and lifestyle was also presented, though the juror said personal matters such as alleged affairs were not decisive.The defense emphasized accounting errors and challenged the venue for certain mortgage counts. Still, the juror said responsibility rested with Goldstein because he signed the tax returns. Prosecutors have praised the verdict, while the defense has not publicly commented. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.Goldstein Testimony ‘Solidified' Case, Juror Says - Law360District of Maryland | Prominent Lawyer Thomas Goldstein Convicted of Tax Evasion and Mortgage Fraud | United States Department of Justice 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: Reichstag Fire DecreeOn February 27, 1933, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze in Berlin, an event that would alter the course of constitutional government in Germany. The fire broke out just weeks after Adolf Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested at the scene, and Nazi officials quickly blamed a broader communist conspiracy. The next day, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree at Hitler's urging.The decree suspended key civil liberties guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and protections against unlawful searches and detention. It also allowed the central government to override state authorities. In practical terms, the measure authorized indefinite detention without trial. Police power expanded dramatically, and political opponents were arrested in large numbers.Although framed as a temporary emergency response, the decree had no meaningful expiration. It became the legal foundation for dismantling democratic institutions in Germany. Courts largely failed to check the expanding authority of the executive branch. The event demonstrates how emergency powers, once normalized, can erode constitutional safeguards from within. The Reichstag Fire and its legal aftermath remain a lasting example of how constitutional systems can collapse through formally lawful measures rather than open revolution.Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to give private testimony to the House Oversight Committee regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The closed-door session follows testimony from Hillary Clinton, who said she does not recall meeting Epstein and denied having information about his crimes. Bill Clinton previously flew on Epstein's plane multiple times after leaving office, and recently released Justice Department documents include photos of him with unidentified women. He has denied any misconduct and has expressed regret over his past association.Committee Chairman James Comer stated that neither Clinton is accused of wrongdoing but said they must address questions about Epstein's possible connections to their charitable foundation. The Clintons agreed to testify near their home in New York after lawmakers threatened contempt proceedings. Some Democrats supported compelling their testimony, while others criticized the inquiry as politically motivated.Democrats argue that Republicans are using the investigation to shield Donald Trump from scrutiny. They have called for Trump to be subpoenaed, noting that his name appears frequently in Epstein-related records and that he had social ties with Epstein before Epstein's 2008 conviction. Democrats also claim the Justice Department is withholding records involving allegations against Trump. The department has said it is reviewing the materials and has emphasized that released files contain unverified claims. Authorities have not charged Trump with any crimes related to Epstein. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges, and his death was ruled a suicide.Bill Clinton to give private testimony to Congress about Epstein | ReutersA federal judge has allowed construction of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom to continue, at least for now. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied a request from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to temporarily halt the project while its lawsuit moves forward. The group had sought a preliminary injunction to stop work, arguing that the administration failed to comply with federal laws, including obtaining congressional approval and conducting proper environmental review.Leon ruled that the preservationists had not met the legal standard required for such an emergency order. However, he indicated they may revise their complaint to better challenge the president's claimed statutory authority to proceed without Congress. The lawsuit contends that demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning construction violated federal restrictions on altering federal property in Washington, D.C. It also argues that the National Park Service should have completed a more detailed environmental impact statement before work began.The Trump administration maintains that the renovation fits within longstanding presidential authority over White House changes and serves public functions. Trump praised the ruling publicly and said the ballroom would symbolize national strength. The National Trust expressed disappointment but said it plans to amend its legal claims.The East Wing, originally built in 1902 and expanded in 1942, was demolished in October. The ballroom is part of broader renovations Trump has made since returning to office in 2025. Although construction is underway, no firm completion date has been announced.Trump's White House ballroom can move ahead for now, judge rules | ReutersPrediction-market company Kalshi has hired prominent Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal to represent it in a series of disputes with state regulators. Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, appeared this week in a lawsuit Kalshi filed against Utah officials and is also handling similar cases in several other states. The company argues that its event-based trading contracts fall under the authority of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state gambling regulators.States contend that platforms like Kalshi are effectively operating unlicensed sports-betting businesses. Other prediction-market operators, including Polymarket and Coinbase, are also fighting regulatory battles and have assembled experienced legal teams. The industry has grown rapidly, with tens of billions of dollars in trading volume last year, increasing scrutiny from state authorities.Kalshi bets on Neal Katyal in prediction market cases | ReutersNetflix has withdrawn its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery after WBD's board determined that a competing offer from Paramount Skydance was superior. Netflix's co-CEOs said their proposed merger would have delivered value and likely cleared regulatory review, but matching Paramount's higher price no longer made financial sense. They described the deal as desirable at the right valuation, but not essential at any cost.Paramount's leadership welcomed WBD's decision, saying its proposal offers greater value and a clearer path to closing. To finalize the Paramount deal, a short match period must expire, Netflix's existing merger agreement must be terminated, and a definitive agreement between Paramount and WBD must be signed.Paramount recently raised its offer to $31 per share in cash, along with a quarterly ticking fee if the deal is not completed by a specified date. The proposal also includes a $7 billion regulatory termination fee if the transaction fails because of regulatory issues, as well as reimbursement of the $2.8 billion breakup fee WBD would owe Netflix upon ending their agreement. With Netflix stepping aside, Paramount is now positioned to complete the acquisition.Netflix Drops WBD Bid, Paving Way For Paramount Deal - Law360This week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.This week's closing theme takes us to Chopin and his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, a work that helped launch his international career. Although numbered second, it was actually the first of his two piano concertos to be written, composed in 1829 when he was just twenty. The concerto reflects Chopin's deep roots in the Polish Romantic tradition, while also revealing the poetic lyricism that would define his later solo piano works. Its sweeping first movement balances youthful brilliance with emotional intensity. The second movement, marked Larghetto, is intimate and expressive, often described as a musical love letter. The finale brings rhythmic energy and subtle references to Polish dance forms.The piece gained wider recognition when Chopin performed it during his Paris debut on February 27, 1832. That appearance introduced him to the influential musical circles of Paris and marked a turning point in his career. The concerto showcased not only his technical skill, but also his distinctive touch and refined musical voice. While later critics sometimes focused on the orchestration, the piano writing remains among the most elegant of the Romantic era. The work captures a young composer standing at the threshold of fame, blending vulnerability with confidence. As our closing theme this week, it reflects both artistic ambition and a historic February 27 connection that helped shape Chopin's legacy.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Grand Teton National ParkOn February 26, 1929, Congress officially established Grand Teton National Park, preserving one of the most striking mountain landscapes in the American West. While today the park is known for its natural beauty and wildlife, its creation was rooted in significant legal and political conflict. The legislation reflected a growing national commitment to conservation during the early twentieth century. At the same time, it sparked fierce opposition from local ranchers and residents who feared federal control over land they had long used for grazing and settlement. Many critics argued that expanding federal ownership infringed upon traditional property rights and state authority.The controversy centered on Congress's constitutional power to regulate and manage federal lands under the Property Clause. Supporters of the park maintained that the federal government had clear authority to preserve land for public use and environmental protection. Opponents viewed the move as an overreach that disrupted local economies and private land expectations. The debate highlighted tensions between national conservation goals and regional economic interests. It also illustrated how public land policy can serve as a testing ground for broader constitutional principles.Ultimately, the establishment of the park signaled an expanding federal role in environmental stewardship. It marked a shift toward long-term preservation over short-term private development. The legal battles surrounding the park foreshadowed future disputes over land use, resource management, and federal regulatory power. February 26, 1929, thus stands as a reminder that conservation law has often advanced through conflict as much as consensus.The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the University of California system, alleging that Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA were subjected to an antisemitic hostile work environment. The complaint, brought by the Justice Department in Los Angeles, claims UCLA failed to respond adequately to discrimination complaints following the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Federal officials argue that the university ignored or even enabled antisemitic conduct during a period marked by intense campus protests over the war in Gaza. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring UCLA to investigate the allegations, improve anti-discrimination training, and pay unspecified damages to two professors who say they experienced antisemitism.This legal action is part of a broader effort by President Trump to challenge universities over pro-Palestinian protests, diversity programs, and other policies. The administration previously attempted to freeze significant federal funding for UCLA, though a judge ordered that funding restored. UCLA has responded by pointing to institutional reforms, including restructuring its civil rights office and launching initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism. Large demonstrations took place on campus in 2024, with protesters calling for divestment from companies linked to Israel and an end to U.S. support for the war in Gaza. Some demonstrators, including Jewish groups, have argued that criticism of Israeli policy is being wrongly labeled as antisemitism.The University of California system receives more than $17 billion annually in federal funding, heightening the stakes of the dispute. The administration has reached financial settlements in similar investigations involving other universities, prompting concerns among academic experts about the impact on academic freedom. Notably, the administration has not pursued comparable investigations into allegations of Islamophobia or anti-Palestinian discrimination.Trump administration alleges antisemitic work environment at UCLA | ReutersAttorneys general from 11 Republican-led states have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to closely examine Netflix's proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of studio and streaming assets from Warner Bros. The state officials argue that the deal could harm competition and weaken the United States' leadership in the film industry. In a letter to federal regulators, they urged careful scrutiny of how the merger might affect streaming subscribers and the theatrical movie market.Warner Bros. has accepted Netflix's offer, but its board is also weighing a competing proposal from Paramount Skydance, which has suggested that Netflix's bid may face greater antitrust challenges. The state attorneys general contend that combining the companies' assets could lead to excessive market concentration. They warn that reduced competition might result in higher prices, diminished service quality, and fewer innovative offerings for consumers.The officials emphasize that the entertainment industry is a significant part of the American economy and cultural influence, making regulatory oversight especially important. Their request signals potential legal and political resistance to the transaction as federal antitrust authorities evaluate the proposed merger.11 US States urge DOJ to thoroughly probe Netflix-Warner Bros. deal | ReutersSpain's competition regulator has determined that Apple and Amazon failed to promptly remove anti-competitive clauses from their distribution agreements, despite being ordered to do so. The watchdog, known as the CNMC, had fined the companies 194 million euros in 2023 and instructed them to immediately eliminate contract terms that limited the number of Apple resellers on Amazon's Spanish platform. Regulators said those provisions unfairly restricted competition and affected how rival products were promoted on the site.According to the CNMC, the companies did not fully comply with the cease-and-desist order until May 2025, well after the directive was issued. This delay could expose them to additional penalties. The regulator had also alleged that the agreements reduced advertising space for competing brands and blocked marketing efforts targeting Apple customers with alternative products.Both companies dispute the findings. Apple stated that it respects the regulator but disagrees with the ruling and maintains it has followed official instructions, emphasizing efforts to protect customers from counterfeit goods. Amazon likewise rejected the regulator's conclusions and said it plans to appeal, arguing that its business model depends on supporting third-party sellers, many of whom are small and medium-sized businesses. The original 2023 fine remains suspended while the case is under review by Spain's High Court.Apple and Amazon took too long to remove anti-competitive clauses, Spanish watchdog 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: Hiram Rhodes RevelsOn February 25, 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was sworn in as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. His election came during the turbulent Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, a period defined by constitutional change and political uncertainty. Revels represented Mississippi, a former Confederate state that had only recently been readmitted to the Union. In a moment heavy with symbolism, he filled the Senate seat once held by Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. The contrast between the two men reflected the profound transformation taking place in American law and government.Revels' swearing-in came after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and protected voting rights regardless of race. His presence in the Senate gave tangible meaning to those constitutional promises. Yet his path to office was not without challenge. Some senators argued that he did not meet the Constitution's nine-year citizenship requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had denied Black Americans citizenship before the Civil War. Supporters countered that the 14th Amendment had settled the question of citizenship, making Revels eligible to serve. The Senate ultimately voted to seat him, affirming the legal force of the Reconstruction Amendments.Revels served only a brief term, but his impact was lasting. His election marked a rare window in American history when federal power was actively used to expand civil and political rights in the South. Although Reconstruction would eventually give way to decades of segregation and disenfranchisement, February 25, 1870 stands as a reminder of a constitutional moment when the nation attempted to redefine equality under the law.The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its first major update to its enforcement manual in eight years, outlining a new vision focused on fairness and transparency. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the revisions as overdue and said the agency will now review the manual annually. The updated 115-page guide provides clearer direction on how enforcement investigations will proceed and what options are available to individuals and companies under scrutiny.One key change involves the Wells process, which notifies potential defendants that SEC staff intend to recommend enforcement action. Under the revised policy, recipients of a Wells notice will have four weeks to submit a written response. After filing that response, they may request a meeting with senior leadership in the Division of Enforcement to argue against pursuing charges or to present their perspective on the case.Atkins has previously indicated that reforming the Wells process is a priority, emphasizing the need for accurate and carefully considered enforcement actions. Enforcement Division Director Meg Ryan also noted that a persuasive Wells response can influence whether commissioners ultimately approve a case. The manual further reinstates the ability of settling parties to request waivers from automatic industry bars that can follow enforcement actions. In addition, it introduces clearer guidance on how cooperation may reduce penalties and explains how the SEC may coordinate with criminal authorities. Overall, the agency says the revisions aim to clarify how it enforces federal securities laws and strengthen public confidence in the process.SEC Lays Out New Enforcement Vision In Revised Guidelines - Law360Paramount Skydance has submitted a revised proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, as a bidding battle with Netflix continues. The new offer follows the expiration of a seven-day waiver period under WBD's existing merger agreement with Netflix. For Paramount's deal to move forward, WBD's board must first determine that the revised bid qualifies as a “Company Superior Proposal” under the Netflix agreement. After that, a four-business-day match period would need to pass, the Netflix agreement would have to be terminated, and a new definitive agreement would need to be signed with Paramount.While the board reviews the updated proposal, Paramount said it will keep its tender offer in place and continue urging shareholders to reject what it calls the less favorable Netflix transaction. The rivalry between the bidders has spilled into public statements, with Paramount criticizing the structure of the Netflix deal as potentially reducing shareholder value. Netflix has pushed back, accusing Paramount of mischaracterizing regulatory issues and focusing on appearances rather than results.WBD confirmed it received the revised bid but reiterated that its current merger agreement with Netflix remains active and that the board still recommends the Netflix deal. Specific terms of Paramount's updated offer were not disclosed, though it recently added financial safeguards, regulatory commitments, and an offer to cover the breakup fee if WBD exits the Netflix agreement. Netflix's agreement to acquire WBD's studio and streaming operations is valued at about $82.7 billion, while Paramount's competing proposal to purchase the entire company is valued at roughly $108.4 billion.Paramount Revises WBD Offer As Netflix Bid War Goes On - Law360​​A federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from freely searching devices seized from a Washington Post reporter during a national security leak investigation. The FBI searched reporter Hannah Natanson's home in January and took electronic devices as part of a probe into the alleged disclosure of government secrets. Natanson, who has reported on President Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, has not been charged with any crime.U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the government may not conduct an unrestricted review of the seized materials. Instead, he said the court will oversee the examination of the devices to ensure that journalistic protections are respected while still allowing investigators to seek relevant evidence. Porter rejected the Justice Department's request to let prosecutors carry out a broad, unsupervised search.Justice Department attorneys had argued that reviewing the materials was essential to a criminal investigation involving national security concerns. They proposed using a separate FBI “filter team” to screen the data and remove irrelevant content before investigators accessed it. The judge's order reflects an effort to balance press freedom with the government's authority to pursue evidence in sensitive cases.US judge blocks search of Washington Post reporter's devices | ReutersA California woman is set to testify in Los Angeles that her early use of Instagram and YouTube harmed her mental health, in a closely watched trial against Meta and Google. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., says she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and later struggled with depression and body dysmorphia. Her attorneys argue the companies deliberately designed their platforms to attract and retain young users despite being aware of potential psychological risks.The case is part of a broader international push to address the impact of social media on children, with some countries already imposing restrictions. Earlier phases of the trial focused on what the companies knew about the effects of their platforms on young users and how they targeted that demographic. Now the proceedings are turning to Kaley's personal experiences and whether the platforms substantially contributed to her mental health challenges.To succeed, her legal team must prove that the design or operation of the platforms was a significant factor in causing or worsening her condition. Meta has pointed to her history of family instability and alleged abuse as alternative explanations for her struggles. Her lawyer, however, referenced internal company research suggesting that teens facing difficult circumstances were more likely to use Instagram compulsively.The lawsuit also challenges features such as autoplay videos, endless scrolling, “like” buttons, and beauty filters, which the plaintiff claims encouraged prolonged use and distorted self-image. YouTube's defense argues that she did not fully use available safety tools and presented data indicating her recent average viewing time was relatively limited.Woman suing Meta, YouTube over social media addiction takes the stand at trial | 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: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. 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: Order 9066On this day in legal history, enforcement of Executive Order 9066 began in earnest following its signing by Franklin D. Roosevelt earlier in February 1942. The order authorized the military to designate exclusion zones and remove individuals deemed security risks from certain areas of the country. In practice, it led to the forced relocation and incarceration of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, most of whom were U.S. citizens. Families were removed from their homes, businesses were lost, and entire communities were dismantled. The government justified the policy as a matter of national security during World War II. Critics argued it was rooted in racial prejudice rather than military necessity.The constitutionality of the policy reached the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen, had refused to comply with the exclusion order and was convicted. In a 6–3 decision, the Court upheld his conviction, accepting the government's claim that the exclusion was justified by wartime necessity. The majority deferred heavily to the executive branch, emphasizing the perceived threat on the West Coast. In dissent, several justices warned that the decision validated racial discrimination under the guise of military urgency.Decades later, the ruling came to be widely regarded as a grave error. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, formally apologizing and providing reparations to surviving internees. In 2018, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that Korematsu was wrongly decided, rejecting its reasoning even though it was not formally overturned in the technical sense. The episode remains a cautionary example of how constitutional protections can erode in times of crisis.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning the scope of the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows American companies to sue over property confiscated by Cuba after the 1959 revolution. One case involves ExxonMobil's effort to recover more than $1 billion for oil and gas assets seized by Cuba in 1960. Exxon sued a Cuban state-owned company in 2019, alleging it continues to profit from the confiscated property. A lower court ruled that the Cuban entities could claim foreign sovereign immunity, which generally protects foreign governments from being sued in U.S. courts. Exxon has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.The second case involves four cruise operators—Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line, and MSC Cruises—accused of unlawfully benefiting from docks in Havana that were originally built and operated by a U.S. company before being seized by Cuba. The docks were used between 2016 and 2019, after travel restrictions were eased under President Obama. A trial judge initially ruled against the cruise lines and awarded more than $100 million in damages, but an appeals court later dismissed the case, finding that the original concession had expired before the cruise lines used the property. The Supreme Court's decisions could clarify how broadly Congress intended the Helms-Burton Act to apply and whether claimants face significant legal barriers when seeking compensation.US Supreme Court to hear Exxon bid for compensation from Cuba | ReutersU.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that it will stop collecting tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) beginning just after midnight on Tuesday. The decision comes several days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those tariffs were unlawful. The agency said it would deactivate the tariff codes tied to President Donald Trump's IEEPA-related orders but did not explain why collections continued for days after the ruling. It also did not address whether importers who paid the duties would receive refunds.The suspension of the IEEPA tariffs coincides with the implementation of a new 15% global tariff introduced under a different statutory authority. Customs clarified that the halt applies only to the IEEPA-based tariffs and does not affect other trade measures, including those enacted under Section 232 for national security reasons or Section 301 for unfair trade practices. Economists have estimated that the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs generated more than $175 billion in revenue and were bringing in over $500 million per day. As a result, the ruling potentially exposes the government to significant refund claims from importers.US to stop collecting tariffs deemed illegal by Supreme Court on Tuesday | ReutersJPMorgan Chase informed President Donald Trump and his hospitality company in February 2021 that it was closing their bank accounts, according to newly released documents tied to Trump's $5 billion lawsuit against the bank and its CEO, Jamie Dimon. The letters were sent about a month after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. At the time, several businesses and organizations distanced themselves from Trump, including law firms and the PGA of America.In its February 19, 2021 letters, JPMorgan did not provide a detailed explanation for ending the relationship. The bank stated generally that it may determine a client's interests are no longer served by continuing with J.P. Morgan Private Bank. JPMorgan has previously argued that Trump's lawsuit lacks merit. Trump's legal team, however, claims the letters amount to an admission that the bank intentionally “de-banked” him and his businesses, allegedly causing major financial harm.Trump contends that JPMorgan violated its own policies and unfairly targeted him for political reasons. The newly disclosed letters were submitted as part of the bank's effort to transfer the case from federal court in Miami to New York, where JPMorgan argues the dispute is more closely connected.JPMorgan says it closed Trump's bank accounts a month after Jan. 6 attack | ReutersA federal judge in Florida declined to overturn a $243 million jury verdict against Tesla stemming from a fatal 2019 crash involving the company's Autopilot system. The court found that the evidence presented at trial sufficiently supported the jury's conclusion that Autopilot played a role in the collision, which killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon in Key Largo. The jury determined that both the driver and Tesla shared responsibility for the crash.Jurors originally awarded $59 million to Benavides' parents and $70 million to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was injured in the incident. After accounting for comparative fault, the compensatory damages were reduced to about $42.6 million, with the driver found 67% responsible and Tesla 33% responsible. The jury also imposed $200 million in punitive damages against the company.Tesla asked the court to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial, arguing that the damages were excessive and that its conduct did not meet Florida's legal threshold for punitive damages. The company also contended that state law limits punitive damages to three times the compensatory award. The judge rejected these arguments, stating that Tesla was largely repeating points already considered and dismissed during trial.At trial, plaintiffs argued that Autopilot was defective because it could be activated on roads it was not designed for and did not adequately ensure driver attention. They also claimed Tesla overstated the system's capabilities. The driver admitted he had looked away from the road moments before the crash.Tesla Can't Escape $243M Autopilot Crash Verdict - 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: Jacobson v. MassachusettsOn this day in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a case that defined the balance between individual liberty and public health. The dispute arose during a smallpox outbreak when Massachusetts authorized local governments to require vaccinations. Henning Jacobson refused the vaccine, arguing that the mandate violated his personal liberty under the Constitution. The case presented a fundamental question: how far can the state go in protecting the health of its citizens?In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the compulsory vaccination law. The justices reasoned that individual freedoms are not absolute. Writing for the majority, the Court explained that the Constitution permits reasonable regulations to protect public health and safety. This authority stems from the state's “police power,” a broad power to enact laws for the welfare of the community. The Court emphasized that liberty does not include the right to act in a way that harms others. During an epidemic, the government may impose measures necessary to prevent disease from spreading.The decision established an enduring precedent for public health regulation. It has been cited in later cases involving quarantine laws, vaccine mandates, and emergency health orders. More than a century later, Jacobson remains central to debates about the limits of government authority in times of crisis.A federal judge in California sharply reduced a jury pool in a class action securities trial against Elon Musk after many potential jurors said they could not be impartial. Out of 92 candidates, 38 were dismissed after admitting they could not fairly judge the case, prompting Musk's attorney to argue that strong personal hostility toward his client was affecting the process. The lawsuit, brought by former Twitter investors, alleges that Musk made misleading statements in 2022 to depress the company's stock price while negotiating its purchase. Musk denies the allegations.Judge Charles R. Breyer reminded jurors that their verdict must be based only on evidence presented at trial, not personal opinions about Musk. Several prospective jurors expressed strong views, both positive and negative, and some were removed for cause. One man who said he believed Musk should be in prison but could be fair in a civil case was not selected. Others who openly supported Musk or dismissed class actions as frivolous were also excluded. By the end of the day, a nine-member jury was seated.The case centers on claims that Musk's tweets about the deal being “on hold” and about the percentage of fake accounts misled investors. The judge previously ruled that investors plausibly alleged securities law violations and certified a class of affected shareholders. He also denied early summary judgment motions, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The upcoming trial will determine whether Musk's public statements violated federal securities laws during the 2022 acquisition process.‘Hate' For Musk Quickly Narrows Jury Pool In Twitter Deal Trial - Law360Jeffrey Epstein's estate has agreed to pay up to $35 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that two of his longtime advisers helped facilitate his sex trafficking scheme. The proposed agreement was disclosed in a federal court filing in Manhattan and must still be approved by a judge. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, targeted Darren Indyke, Epstein's former personal lawyer, and Richard Kahn, his longtime accountant, who serve as co-executors of the estate.Attorneys for the victims claimed the two men assisted Epstein by managing a network of corporations and financial accounts that concealed his activities and enabled payments to victims and recruiters. As part of the settlement, neither Indyke nor Kahn admitted wrongdoing. Their attorney stated they were prepared to contest the claims at trial but chose to settle to bring closure and resolve remaining potential claims against the estate.The estate has already distributed substantial sums to victims. A compensation program previously paid out $121 million, and an additional $49 million has been resolved through other settlements. According to defense counsel, the new agreement will offer a confidential path to compensation for individuals who have not yet settled claims.Epstein died in a New York jail in 2019, and his death was ruled a suicide.Epstein estate agrees to $35 million settlement in victim class action | ReutersThe Trump administration announced plans to scale back federal limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants. Officials said easing these standards would help utilities manage costs and maintain reliable baseload electricity as power demand rises, particularly from artificial intelligence data centers. The move targets updates made during the Biden administration to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which built on regulations first adopted in 2012.The Biden-era revisions would have significantly reduced allowable mercury emissions and cut releases of toxic metals such as arsenic, nickel, and lead. Supporters of those rules argued they would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in public health savings by lowering exposure to harmful pollutants. The Supreme Court previously declined to pause the updated standards while legal challenges proceeded.Environmental and public health advocates warn that weakening the rule could increase health risks, especially for children and other vulnerable populations, since mercury exposure can impair neurological development. The EPA, however, stated that the original 2012 rule already provides sufficient public health protection and that the newer requirements impose costs exceeding their benefits.The rollback aligns with broader administration efforts to support coal power, including declaring an energy emergency, granting temporary exemptions to dozens of coal plants, and revisiting prior climate-related regulatory findings. Coal plants currently produce less than one-fifth of U.S. electricity but remain significant sources of hazardous air pollution.Trump EPA to weaken rule limiting harmful mercury, air toxics from coal plants | ReutersA federal judge in California ruled that PepsiCo and its Frito-Lay division can block a proposed class action brought by convenience store owners alleging unfair pricing practices. The stores claimed the company favored large national retailers by offering them better wholesale prices, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination. The lawsuit sought to represent thousands of independently owned California stores that said they lost significant sales as a result of the alleged practices.U.S. District Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that all proposed class members suffered the same type of injury, a key requirement for class certification under federal law. She explained that price discrimination claims typically require detailed, transaction-specific evidence, making broad class treatment difficult. The court agreed with the defendants' argument that resolving the claims would require individualized inquiries into each store's circumstances.Although the judge rejected the class action request, she did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. Instead, she allowed the plaintiffs to revise and refile their class allegations. Attorneys for the convenience stores said they plan to amend the complaint to provide additional detail about how Frito-Lay allegedly disadvantaged smaller retailers.PepsiCo, Frito-Lay win US court order barring class action in snack pricing lawsuit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose broad tariffs under a declared national emergency. In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties exclusively to Congress, not the executive branch. The case arose after President Trump declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits and then imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China.Small businesses and several states challenged the tariffs, arguing that IEEPA permits the president to “regulate” importation but does not explicitly authorize the imposition of duties. Lower courts agreed, and the Federal Circuit largely affirmed those rulings before the cases reached the Supreme Court. The majority concluded that the statutory term “regulate . . . importation” cannot be read to include the power to impose taxes, especially given Congress's consistent practice of clearly and specifically granting tariff authority in other statutes. The Court also relied on the “major questions” doctrine, reasoning that such sweeping economic authority requires clear congressional authorization, which IEEPA does not provide.The justices rejected arguments that emergency powers or foreign affairs concerns justified a broader interpretation. They noted that no prior president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history. As a result, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating the tariffs and directed dismissal of a related case for lack of jurisdiction.Justices Strike Down Trump's Emergency TariffsThis week's closing theme is by Louis Spohr.This week's closing theme features music by Spohr, a composer who stood at the crossroads between the Classical and early Romantic eras. Born in 1784, Spohr was a celebrated violinist, conductor, and teacher whose reputation in his lifetime rivaled many of his contemporaries. Though his name is less familiar today, he played an important role in shaping early nineteenth-century orchestral and chamber music. His style combines Classical clarity with the expressive warmth that would define the Romantic movement.Spohr wrote four clarinet concertos, each showcasing the instrument's growing technical and expressive range. The Clarinet Concerto in F minor reflects both virtuosity and lyricism, qualities that made the clarinet increasingly popular in concert halls of the time. The first movement, Allegro assai, opens with dramatic orchestral energy before introducing the soloist in sweeping, agile lines. The music balances precision with expressive phrasing, demanding both technical control and emotional depth from the performer.Throughout the movement, Spohr allows the clarinet to sing as much as it dazzles. Rapid passages are paired with moments of lyrical calm, highlighting the instrument's wide tonal palette. The dialogue between soloist and orchestra feels conversational rather than combative, giving the concerto an elegant cohesion. As our closing theme, this Allegro assai offers drive, color, and a glimpse into a composer once central to Europe's musical life.Without further ado, Louis Spohr's Clarinet Concerto in F minor, the first movement, the Allegro assai – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Edison Receives Patent on PhonographOn February 19, 1878, Thomas Edison received a patent for one of his most transformative inventions: the phonograph. The device could record and reproduce sound, a breakthrough that stunned the public and reshaped the relationship between technology and creativity. Until that point, copyright law primarily protected written works such as books, maps, and sheet music. The phonograph introduced an entirely new category of expression—recorded sound—that did not fit neatly into existing statutes. Lawmakers and courts were soon confronted with a difficult question: who owns a performance once it is captured on a machine?Early copyright frameworks did not clearly account for performers' rights in recorded works. As the recording industry grew, pressure mounted to recognize both composers and performers as legal stakeholders. Congress responded incrementally, expanding federal copyright protections to cover sound recordings in the twentieth century. These changes reflected a broader shift toward adapting intellectual property law to technological innovation. Courts also played a role by interpreting statutes in ways that acknowledged the economic realities of recorded music. The phonograph's legacy thus extends far beyond its mechanical design. It forced the legal system to confront how creative labor should be valued in an age of reproduction. In doing so, Edison's invention helped lay the foundation for modern intellectual property law governing sound recording and broadcasting.A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to revoke the scientific “endangerment finding” that underpins federal climate regulations. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and also challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's move to repeal vehicle tailpipe emissions limits. The administration recently announced it would eliminate the 17-year-old finding and end greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2027.The endangerment finding, first adopted in 2009, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, triggering regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Its repeal would remove requirements for measuring and complying with federal vehicle emissions standards, though immediate effects on stationary sources like power plants remain uncertain. The administration characterized the rollback as a major cost-saving measure, estimating $1.3 trillion in taxpayer savings.By contrast, the Biden administration had previously argued the vehicle standards would produce net consumer benefits, including lower fuel and maintenance costs averaging thousands of dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. The lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to President Trump's broader effort to scale back climate policy, promote fossil fuel development, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and dismantle clean energy incentives. Transportation and power generation each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the stakes of the regulatory reversal.Environmental groups challenge Trump decision to revoke basis of US climate regulations | ReutersMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify in a Los Angeles jury trial examining whether Instagram harms young users' mental health. The case centers on allegations that Meta designed its platform to keep children engaged despite knowing about potential psychological risks. A California woman who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child claims the platforms contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. She is seeking damages, arguing the companies prioritized profit over user well-being.Meta and Google deny the accusations and point to safety features they have implemented. Meta has also cited research suggesting that evidence does not conclusively show social media directly changes children's mental health. Defense attorneys argue the plaintiff's struggles stem from personal and family issues rather than her social media use.The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the United States, where families, schools, and states have filed thousands of similar claims against major tech companies. Internationally, governments such as Australia have imposed age-based restrictions, and other countries are considering similar measures. The trial could test the tech industry's longstanding legal protections against liability for user harm. If the plaintiff prevails, the verdict may weaken those defenses and open the door to additional claims. Zuckerberg is expected to face questions about internal company research concerning Instagram's effects on teens.Meta's Zuckerberg faces questioning at youth addiction trial | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco has ordered a lawyer representing passengers in sexual assault litigation against Uber to pay sanctions for violating a protective order. The ruling requires attorney Bret Stanley to pay $30,000 in legal fees to Uber after he disclosed confidential company information obtained during discovery. The case is part of consolidated litigation accusing Uber of failing to implement adequate safety measures and background checks for drivers, claims the company denies.U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros found that Stanley improperly shared the names of internal Uber policies in unrelated lawsuits and with other plaintiffs' attorneys. Uber argued that he used the confidential material as a roadmap to pursue evidence in other cases. The judge concluded that Stanley acted unreasonably by unilaterally deciding to disclose protected information. However, she rejected Uber's request for more than $168,000 in fees, finding that the company had not demonstrated significant harm from the disclosures.Stanley defended his actions, stating he intended to streamline discovery in related cases and accused Uber of delaying document production nationwide. The judge also indicated Stanley will owe additional fees tied to a separate sanctions request, after finding he searched case documents to assist another lawsuit. The decision comes shortly after a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.Uber wins sanctions against lawyer for sexual assault plaintiffs | 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: Aaron Burr Arrested (But Not For That)On February 18, 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was arrested in the Mississippi Territory on charges of treason against the United States. Once one of the most powerful men in the young republic, Burr had fallen from political grace after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel and drifting to the margins of national life. Federal authorities accused him of plotting to carve out an independent nation in the western territories, possibly including lands belonging to Spain. The allegations sparked fear that the fragile Union could splinter only decades after independence.Later that year, Burr stood trial in Richmond, Virginia, before Chief Justice John Marshall, who was riding circuit. The case quickly became a constitutional showdown between executive power and judicial restraint. President Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the prosecution, but Marshall insisted that the Constitution's Treason Clause be applied strictly. The Constitution requires proof of an “overt act” of levying war against the United States, not merely evidence of intent or conspiracy.Marshall ruled that prosecutors had failed to present sufficient proof that Burr had committed such an overt act. As a result, the jury acquitted him. The decision established an enduring precedent that treason must be narrowly defined and carefully proven. By demanding clear evidence of action rather than suspicion or political hostility, the court reinforced limits on the government's power to punish alleged disloyalty. Burr's trial remains one of the earliest and most significant tests of constitutional safeguards in American legal history.Bayer AG and its Monsanto subsidiary have proposed a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement to resolve current and future claims that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Filed in Missouri state court, the agreement would run for up to 21 years and provide capped, declining annual payments. People diagnosed before or within 16 years after final court approval could seek compensation through the program. The settlement must still receive judicial approval.The proposal is part of a broader strategy tied to the U.S. Supreme Court's pending review of Durnell v. Monsanto, which could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law blocks certain state failure-to-warn claims. Bayer has indicated that a favorable ruling could significantly limit future lawsuits, while the class program is designed to address claims regardless of the Court's decision. Plaintiffs' attorneys say the deal would cover both occupational and residential exposure and protect the rights of future claimants, while allowing individuals to opt out and pursue separate suits.Roundup litigation has generated tens of thousands of cases, with more than 40,000 already pending or subject to tolling agreements. Bayer inherited the legal challenges after acquiring Monsanto in 2018, and the ongoing litigation has weighed heavily on the company financially and reputationally. Previous jury verdicts have resulted in multibillion-dollar awards, some later reduced on appeal or by judges. The new proposal would replace an earlier settlement effort that collapsed in 2020 and aims to create a longer-term, more predictable compensation system.Bayer AG Unveils $7.3B Deal For Roundup Users - Law360Bayer proposes $7.25 billion plan to settle Roundup cancer cases | ReutersA Seattle federal jury found inventor Leigh Rothschild, several of his patent-holding companies, and his former attorney liable for violating Washington's anti-patent trolling law after asserting patent infringement claims against Valve Corp. Jurors concluded the defendants acted in bad faith under the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act and also violated the state's consumer protection statute. Valve was awarded $22,092 in statutory damages.The jury also determined that Rothschild and his companies breached a 2016 global settlement and licensing agreement with Valve. Under that agreement, Valve paid $130,000 for rights to certain patents in exchange for a promise not to sue over them. Despite that covenant, Rothschild's entities later filed a 2022 infringement lawsuit and sent a 2023 letter threatening additional litigation. The jury awarded Valve $130,000 for the first breach and $1 for the second, finding no valid justification for repudiating the agreement.In addition, jurors ruled that one asserted patent claim was invalid because it would have been obvious to a skilled professional at the time of filing. The dispute stemmed from Valve's 2023 lawsuit accusing Rothschild of repeatedly pursuing claims covered by the prior settlement. The defense argued any mistakes were unintentional and not profit-driven, but the jury sided with Valve after a four-day trial.The case also involved procedural controversies, including sanctions over delayed financial disclosures and allegations that a defense filing contained fabricated quotations and citations generated by artificial intelligence. Post-trial motions are expected as the defense challenges aspects of the verdict.Valve Jury Says Rothschild, Atty Broke Anti-Patent Troll Law - Law360Beginning July 1, 2026, new federal limits will cap loans for professional degree students at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, significantly changing how aspiring lawyers finance law school. Administrators and financial aid experts warn that the cap may push students to rely on private loans, which often carry higher interest rates and fewer protections. Unlike federal loans, private loans are generally not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, making them riskier for students planning lower-paying public interest careers.Some admitted students are already reconsidering their options, choosing less expensive schools or withdrawing altogether after calculating potential debt burdens. Law schools may need to increase scholarships or other aid to support students who cannot secure private loans. Private lending has been minimal in legal education since 2006, when federal policy allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, so there is uncertainty about how lenders will respond to renewed demand.Data show that about one-quarter of ABA-accredited law schools currently have average annual federal borrowing above the new $50,000 cap. At some elite institutions, graduates tend to earn high salaries, which may reassure private lenders. However, other schools with high borrowing levels report much lower median earnings, raising concerns about repayment risks. Experts warn that students at lower-ranked schools or from disadvantaged backgrounds could be hit hardest.In response, some schools are creating new financial strategies. The University of Kansas School of Law has launched an in-house loan program with a fixed 5% interest rate for borrowing above the cap. Santa Clara University School of Law is offering guaranteed scholarships to reduce tuition below the federal limit, and applications there have surged. Overall, the loan cap introduces financial uncertainty that could reshape enrollment decisions, access to legal education, and the long-term cost of becoming a lawyer.US law schools, students fear rising costs from new federal loan cap | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has introduced new software designed to help identify potential conflicts of interest involving the justices. The tool will compare information about parties and attorneys in pending cases with financial and other disclosures maintained by each justice's chambers. These automated checks are intended to supplement, not replace, the justices' existing internal review process when deciding whether to step aside from a case.Under current practice, each of the nine justices independently determines whether recusal is necessary. The move comes after the Court adopted its first formal code of conduct in 2023, which states that a justice should withdraw when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Critics have pointed out that the code lacks an enforcement mechanism and leaves recusal decisions solely in the hands of the justices themselves.To support the new system, the Court is also strengthening filing requirements. Parties will need to provide more detailed disclosures, including fuller lists of involved entities and relevant stock ticker symbols. These updated requirements will take effect on March 16. Advocacy groups welcomed the technological upgrade as a step toward better ethics oversight, noting that similar conflict-checking systems have long been standard in lower federal courts.US Supreme Court adopts new technology to help identify conflicts of interest | 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: Wesberry v. Sanders On February 17, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wesberry v. Sanders, one of the most consequential voting rights cases in American history. The dispute arose from Georgia's congressional districts, where vast population disparities meant that some districts had two or even three times as many residents as others. In practical terms, this imbalance diluted the voting power of citizens in more populated, often urban, districts. James P. Wesberry challenged the system, arguing that it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the People.”In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black concluded that the Constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn so that “as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.” The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” for federal elections. It rejected longstanding districting schemes that favored rural regions at the expense of growing urban populations. The decision forced states to redraw congressional maps to ensure substantially equal populations across districts.Wesberry was part of the broader reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, alongside cases addressing state legislative districts. Together, these decisions reshaped American democracy by making representation more closely tied to population equality. By insisting that each vote carry roughly equal weight, the Court strengthened the constitutional promise of representative government. February 17, 1964, marks a turning point in election law and the modern understanding of political equality.A federal judge in New York has ruled that discrimination claims brought by a group of NFL coaches will proceed in court rather than in arbitration. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied the league's request to compel arbitration, finding that the NFL's arbitration system was not fair or neutral. The lawsuit was filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores, later joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, who allege racial discrimination and retaliation in hiring practices. The case has been stalled for several years while the parties disputed whether it belonged in federal court or before an arbitrator.Judge Caproni relied heavily on a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the NFL's arbitration structure was fundamentally flawed. The appellate court criticized the system because the NFL commissioner served as the default arbitrator and controlled the procedures, raising concerns about neutrality. It held that such an arrangement did not allow Flores to effectively vindicate his statutory rights. Based on that reasoning, Judge Caproni determined that the arbitration clause could not be enforced for the remaining claims. She also declined to delay the case further while the NFL considers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.The coaches argue that requiring them to arbitrate before the league's own commissioner would deprive them of a fair forum. Their attorneys praised the ruling, saying it affirms that employees cannot be forced into a process controlled by the opposing party's chief executive. The NFL has not publicly responded to the latest order. The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.NFL Found To Fumble Arbitration Over Bias, Must Go To Court - Law360Ruling says Brian Flores lawsuit vs. NFL, teams can go to court - ESPNA Stanford psychiatry professor testified in a California bellwether trial that research supports the existence of social media addiction and its harmful effects on young people. Dr. Anna Lembke told jurors that peer-reviewed studies show heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. She cited a National Institutes of Health study tracking more than 11,000 minors, which found that children who were not initially depressed were more likely to develop depression after significant social media use. According to Lembke, the study undermines the argument that already-depressed teens simply gravitate toward social media.Her testimony contrasts with statements from Instagram's CEO, who told the jury he does not believe social media addiction is real. The case is the first of several bellwether trials arising from thousands of consolidated lawsuits claiming platforms intentionally designed addictive features. The companies are accused of using tools such as autoplay, notifications, and infinite scrolling to encourage compulsive use. The claims focus on whether these design features are addictive, rather than on third-party content posted by users. Plaintiffs assert negligence, failure to warn, and concealment.During cross-examination, defense attorneys questioned Lembke about passages in her book describing her own compulsive reading of romance novels, attempting to challenge her views on addiction. She responded that her examples were meant to show how modern systems increase vulnerability to compulsive behavior, not to trivialize serious substance addictions. Defense counsel also argued that platform features are easy to disable, but Lembke maintained her analysis centered on their addictive qualities, not on user settings. Outside the courthouse, families held a rally memorializing children whose deaths they attribute to social media harms. The trial will continue next week.Stanford Prof Tells Jury Studies Confirm Social Media Addiction - Law360In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I argue that the IRS's decision to expand tax relief for Americans held hostage abroad is both correct and incomplete. The agency currently freezes collections, halts enforcement notices, and abates penalties when taxpayers are physically incapable of complying due to foreign captivity. I contend that this relief is grounded not in diplomacy, but in a simple principle: incapacity makes compliance impossible. If that principle justifies relief abroad, it should apply equally when the U.S. government wrongfully detains someone at home.I explain that the IRS already has administrative authority to provide this type of relief, as confirmed in a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. When notified by the State Department or FBI, the IRS places a “hostage indicator” on an account, pausing automated enforcement and suspending penalties during captivity and for six months after release. Although TIGTA identified some administrative flaws in how the system operates, the broader framework demonstrates that the agency can act without new legislation.By contrast, taxpayers subjected to wrongful domestic detention—particularly in immigration contexts—receive no comparable safeguard. The compliance system continues to generate notices, penalties, and interest even when individuals are cut off from mail, income, and legal assistance. I argue that this disparity undermines fairness and weakens the legitimacy that voluntary tax compliance depends on. Congress may move to formalize relief for foreign hostages, but the IRS does not need to wait to address domestic cases.I propose that the agency adopt a parallel framework for wrongful domestic detention, triggered by certification from a federal authority or court. Such a system would temporarily suspend collection activity and abate penalties during detention and a reasonable transition period after release. The goal is consistency: a tax system should not distinguish between foreign and domestic incapacity when the result is the same inability to comply.IRS Suspends Tax Obligations For Hostages Abroad—Do The Same At HomeIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Massachusetts' proposed regulation on taxing standardized software creates a rigid and impractical apportionment system for multistate businesses. Under the draft rule, any company seeking to allocate tax based on actual in-state use must register through MassTaxConnect and obtain a software apportionment certificate. At the time of purchase, the buyer must also submit a transaction-specific statement explaining its allocation percentage and supporting rationale. I contend that this framework imposes significant administrative burdens on businesses that operate across multiple states.Even companies willing to overpay rather than calculate precise usage would not have an easy option. If they decline to complete the required documentation, they must pay tax on 100% of the purchase price, regardless of how little of the software is actually used in Massachusetts. I argue that this approach effectively turns multistate buyers into compliance agents who must track usage, justify percentages, and retain records for possible audits. At the same time, the Department of Revenue would assume the role of reviewing and policing each allocation.I point out that enterprise software usage is often fluid and difficult to track, especially when licenses are pooled, accessed remotely, or bundled into broader contracts. Proving precise state-by-state use may be costly or even unworkable. Instead of forcing every buyer into this detailed regime, I propose a safe harbor option. Businesses could elect a fixed in-state percentage, such as 25%, and accept taxation on that amount without additional paperwork or registration.I explain that this alternative would not eliminate full apportionment for those seeking precision or refunds, but would provide a simpler path for others. The safe harbor could even operate on a transitional basis while the state evaluates how the broader certification system functions. Ultimately, I argue that modernization should not mean added complexity, and that a fixed-percentage election would promote voluntary compliance, reduce administrative strain, and provide greater certainty for both taxpayers and the state. 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: Powell v. AlabamaOn February 16, 1932, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. Alabama, a case that would become a cornerstone of modern criminal procedure. The appeal arose from the notorious Scottsboro Boys prosecutions in Alabama, where nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women aboard a train. The trials moved with alarming speed, and the defendants were sentenced to death after proceedings that offered little meaningful access to legal counsel. In some instances, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial, leaving virtually no time to prepare a defense.The case forced the Court to confront whether such rushed representation satisfied the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. When the decision was issued later that year, the Court held that in capital cases, state courts must provide defendants with effective assistance of counsel. The justices emphasized that the right to be heard would mean little without the guiding hand of an attorney. The ruling did not yet create a broad right to counsel in all felony cases, but it marked a significant expansion of constitutional protections in state criminal proceedings.Powell signaled that fundamental fairness in state trials was subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. It also laid important groundwork for later decisions that would extend the right to counsel beyond capital cases. The case remains a defining example of how procedural safeguards can shape the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived part of Google's challenge to a Wildseed Mobile LLC patent covering the creation and transmission of “hot links” through text messages. A three-judge panel vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had upheld one remaining claim of the patent, while invalidating the others. The appellate court found that the board failed to properly analyze Google's argument that the claim was invalid in light of prior art.The disputed claim involved generating a hot link using either an SMS message or an instant message. Although Google addressed both aspects in its petition, the board focused only on the SMS portion and did not meaningfully address the instant messaging limitation. The Federal Circuit said the board neither evaluated whether prior art covered the instant messaging element nor explained why it declined to do so. Because of that omission, the panel sent the case back to the board for further review.Wildseed had accused Google of infringing the patent based on how advertisements function on YouTube. The lawsuit was initially filed in Texas in 2022 but later moved to federal court in California, where proceedings were paused pending the outcome of the PTAB review. In 2024, the board had already invalidated claims in two related Wildseed patents involving video ads and smartphone notifications.Google's Hot Link Patent Claim Challenge Revived At Fed. Circ. - Law360Federal prosecutors have unveiled additional details in a criminal case accusing Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz of participating in a pitch-fixing scheme tied to sports betting. A superseding indictment filed in New York alleges that Clase exchanged coded text messages with associates and bettors before games to signal when he would throw specific pitches. The messages reportedly used poultry-themed language such as “rooster” and “chicken” to disguise the scheme. In one example, an associate allegedly texted Clase about throwing a “rock at the first rooster,” to which Clase responded affirmatively.Prosecutors claim that bettors used this advance information to place successful proposition bets on pitch speed, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the indictment, bettors earned at least $400,000 on wagers involving Clase and about $60,000 on wagers involving Ortiz. The players allegedly agreed to accept bribes of at least $12,000 each. Authorities also allege that some coordination occurred in person, including meetings at Clase's home, and that payments were routed through intermediaries.The updated indictment adds Robinson Vasquez Germosen, who prosecutors say acted as a middleman and later lied to FBI agents about his knowledge of the scheme. He is charged with making false statements. Clase and Ortiz previously pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys maintain that the allegations are unproven and will be challenged at trial.MLB Pitcher Sent ‘Coded' Texts For Rigged Pitches, Feds Say - Law360 UKA long-running dispute over ownership of a goldendoodle named Tucker has concluded with a private sealed-bid auction ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case, Callahan v. Nelson, involved former partners Karen Callahan and Joseph Nelson, who had jointly acquired the dog while dating but could not agree on ownership after their 2022 breakup. Because the couple was never married, they could not rely on Delaware's family law statute that allows courts to consider a pet's well-being when dividing marital property.After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the matter reached the state's premier business court, where Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David applied a property “partition” remedy. Rather than ordering shared custody or considering the dog's best interests, the court required a single blind bidding process between the parties. The higher bidder would keep Tucker, and the other would receive the payment. The exact amount of the winning bid was not disclosed. Nelson ultimately submitted the top bid and retained the dog.The court explained that, absent statutory authority to weigh the animal's welfare, traditional property principles favored an auction as the cleanest solution. A neutral attorney oversaw the process and noted that the dog's value was subjective and personal, not easily tied to market measures. Callahan's attorney said she was disappointed but would not seek to block the result, adding that the case sets helpful precedent for resolving similar pet ownership disputes.A key legal element in the case is the use of partition, an equitable remedy typically applied when co-owners of property cannot agree on how to divide it. Instead of physically splitting the property or forcing continued joint ownership, the court may order a sale and distribute the proceeds.Ex-Boyfriend Wins Tucker the Goldendoodle in Sealed Bid Auction 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: Bruno Hauptmann ConvictedOn February 13, 1935, a New Jersey jury convicted Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping and murdering the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The crime had transfixed the nation for nearly three years and was widely labeled the “Crime of the Century.” The child was taken from the Lindbergh home in 1932, and despite a ransom payment, was later found dead. Public outrage was immediate and intense, with newspapers covering nearly every development in the investigation and trial.Hauptmann's prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including ransom notes and expert testimony linking his handwriting to those notes. The government also introduced evidence tying marked ransom bills to Hauptmann's possession. The trial raised early concerns about the reliability of forensic handwriting analysis and the influence of media attention on jury impartiality. Critics then and now have questioned whether the intense publicity compromised due process protections.The case also reshaped federal criminal law. In response to the kidnapping, Congress enacted the Lindbergh Law, formally known as the Federal Kidnapping Act. The statute made it a federal offense to transport a kidnapping victim across state lines, expanding federal jurisdiction over what had traditionally been a state crime. That shift reflected a broader trend during the early twentieth century toward increased federal involvement in criminal enforcement.Today, the Hauptmann conviction remains a staple in criminal law courses, not only for its tragic facts but also for its lasting procedural and constitutional implications.Goldman Sachs' chief legal officer, Kathy Ruemmler, resigned after newly released Justice Department documents detailed her past communications with Jeffrey Epstein. CEO David Solomon announced that he accepted her resignation, which will take effect on June 30. Ruemmler said the media attention surrounding her prior legal work had become a distraction. The disclosures showed she exchanged numerous emails with Epstein between 2014 and 2019 and received gifts from him, including luxury items. Some emails revealed that she advised Epstein on how to respond to press inquiries about his treatment by prosecutors.The documents also noted that Epstein attempted to contact her by phone on the night of his 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ruemmler stated that she knew Epstein only in her capacity as a defense attorney and denied any knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct. Before joining Goldman, she led the white-collar defense practice at Latham & Watkins and previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration.The broader document release has drawn attention to Epstein's connections within major financial institutions, including UBS and JPMorgan. Ruemmler's departure marks one of the most prominent banking exits linked to the renewed scrutiny of Epstein's network.Top Goldman Sachs lawyer Ruemmler resigns after Epstein disclosures | ReutersA federal judge in Minnesota ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement improperly interfered with detainees' access to their attorneys during a recent enforcement operation. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel found that ICE's practices during “Operation Metro Surge” effectively denied thousands of people meaningful legal access. The order requires ICE to stop quickly transferring detainees out of Minnesota and to permit attorney visits and confidential phone calls. The ruling will remain in effect for 14 days while the case proceeds.The class action lawsuit was filed on January 27 on behalf of noncitizen detainees. According to the court, many individuals were moved out of state without notice, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to locate them. In some instances, detainees were transferred so often that ICE itself lost track of their whereabouts. Judge Brasel concluded that while ICE did not formally deny the right to counsel, its actions in practice severely limited that right.The court also cited evidence that detainees were given limited phone access, sometimes sharing a small number of phones among dozens of people, with calls occurring in nonprivate settings. One asylum seeker with a valid work permit was held for 18 days despite a court order requiring his earlier release and was transferred across multiple states without explanation. The judge rejected ICE's claim that it lacked sufficient resources, noting that the agency had committed substantial personnel and funding to the enforcement effort.ICE blocked detainees' access to lawyers in Minnesota, judge finds | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced four new judicial nominations, including a White House attorney selected for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade. The nominee, Kara Westercamp, currently serves as associate counsel in the White House and previously worked at the Justice Department. If confirmed, she would join a nine-member court that handles disputes involving U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariffs. Her nomination comes as numerous companies contest Trump's sweeping global tariffs and seek refunds on duties already paid.Retailers and manufacturers such as Costco, Goodyear, and Revlon have filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs exceed presidential authority. Earlier rulings from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit blocked most of the tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter. Trump has publicly criticized the earlier decisions.In addition to Westercamp, Trump nominated Katie Lane to a federal district court in Montana, Sheria Clarke to a district court seat in South Carolina, and federal prosecutor Evan Rikhye to a 10-year term on the District Court of the Virgin Islands. All nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.Trump nominates White House lawyer to court hearing tariff cases | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is scheduled to appear in federal court in Minnesota to enter a plea related to charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church. The protest targeted President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement surge in the state. Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed the January 18 demonstration, which disrupted a worship service at Cities Church.Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiring to violate civil rights and with obstructing access to a house of worship under a statute also used in cases involving abortion clinic protests. His attorney argues that the prosecution infringes on Lemon's First Amendment rights and characterizes the case as an attack on press freedom. Trump publicly supported the charges, while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that authorities would protect the right to worship without interference.The protest occurred during broader demonstrations against federal immigration actions in Minnesota, where thousands had gathered to oppose the crackdown. Lemon was seen on video speaking with activists before and during the disruption and interviewing participants and congregants inside the church. Another journalist, Georgia Fort, faces similar charges and has denied wrongdoing, stating she was reporting rather than participating.Journalist Don Lemon to enter plea in Minnesota ICE protest case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Bach stands as one of the central figures of the Baroque era, revered for the structural clarity and spiritual depth of his music. Born in 1685 into a long line of musicians, Bach spent much of his career serving as a church organist and cantor in German cities such as Arnstadt, Weimar, and Leipzig. Though not widely celebrated outside musical circles during his lifetime, his reputation has since grown to near-mythic status. His compositions balance intellectual precision with emotional resonance, blending intricate counterpoint with lyrical expression.This week's closing theme is his Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007, likely composed around 1720 during his tenure in Köthen. The suite opens with one of the most recognizable preludes in all of classical music, built from flowing arpeggios that unfold with quiet inevitability. Written for unaccompanied cello, the piece demonstrates Bach's ability to imply harmony and depth through a single melodic line. The suite follows the traditional Baroque dance structure, moving from Prelude through Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Menuets, and Gigue.For many listeners, the Prelude evokes clarity, order, and calm—qualities that make it a fitting close to the week. Its simplicity is deceptive; beneath the surface lies careful architecture and subtle harmonic movement. The work fell into relative obscurity until the twentieth century, when cellist Pablo Casals famously revived it and brought it to concert stages worldwide. Today, it remains a cornerstone of the cello repertoire and a touchstone of Baroque artistry. As a closing theme, it offers both reflection and renewal, ending not with flourish but with quiet confidence.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: NAACP FoundedOn February 12, 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in New York City. Sparked by ongoing racial violence, including the 1908 Springfield Race Riot in Illinois, a group of Black and white activists came together to launch an interracial effort to combat racial injustice. The NAACP would become the most influential civil rights organization in the United States, pursuing its goals through strategic litigation, public education, and advocacy.In its early years, the NAACP focused heavily on using the courts to challenge discriminatory laws and practices, particularly in education and voting. It played a pivotal role in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Through its Legal Defense Fund—established in 1940 and headed for a time by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice—the organization spearheaded a range of major civil rights cases.Beyond litigation, the NAACP was instrumental in pushing for anti-lynching laws, though federal anti-lynching legislation would take over a century to pass. The group's efforts laid the legal and political foundation for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Its influence continues today as it monitors civil rights violations and advocates for racial justice nationwide.Tom Goldstein, a prominent U.S. Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, testified in his own defense during his federal criminal tax trial in Maryland. Goldstein, accused of failing to report millions in poker winnings and misrepresenting debts on mortgage applications, told jurors he never intended to violate the law. He admitted omitting gambling debts to keep them hidden from his wife, and claimed he relied on accountants and firm managers for financial reporting. The trial, overseen by Judge Lydia Griggsby, has drawn attention for its mix of high-stakes legal and poker worlds. Goldstein is alleged to have reported only $27 million of $50 million in poker winnings to the IRS in 2016. He also faces allegations of channeling improper payments through his former law firm and requesting a $500,000 payment from actor Tobey Maguire be sent to a third party to cover personal debts. Maguire, a witness in the trial, is not accused of any misconduct. The defense has called more than a dozen witnesses, including IRS agents, poker players, and law firm executives. Goldstein retired from Supreme Court advocacy in 2023 after arguing over 40 cases. The trial continues with prosecutors set to cross-examine him following his testimony.Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein takes stand at his criminal tax trial | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism from lawmakers during a House Judiciary Committee hearing over the Justice Department's handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Representative Thomas Massie accused Bondi of deliberately concealing the names of powerful individuals connected to Epstein, including billionaire Leslie Wexner, whose name was initially redacted in an FBI document. Bondi countered that Wexner's name had already been made public in other documents and was quickly unredacted once flagged. Lawmakers across the aisle expressed frustration over what they called excessive and unjustified redactions, despite a federal law passed in November mandating broad disclosure of the Epstein files.Bondi defended the department's efforts, highlighting the work of over 500 lawyers on a tight timeline, and insisted any release of victims' identities was accidental. She repeatedly praised President Donald Trump during the hearing and criticized Democratic members, accusing them of political theatrics. Her confrontational style sparked further tension, especially when she refused to apologize to Epstein's victims seated in the gallery, deflecting the request by referencing past administrations. The hearing reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Justice Department's approach to transparency, its alignment with Trump-era politics, and the public's demand for accountability in the Epstein investigation.US lawmakers accuse Bondi of hiding names of Epstein associates | ReutersThe Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced that beginning August 2026, the LSAT will no longer be available online, citing rising concerns over cheating. The move comes after a period of hybrid testing, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed examinees to choose between in-person and remote formats. While remote testing will still be permitted in limited cases involving medical or geographic hardships, the default will now be in-person testing at designated centers. LSAC emphasized that the shift is meant to enhance test integrity and deter misconduct, which has become a growing concern—particularly after the organization suspended online testing in China due to reports of systemic cheating.Industry professionals, including LSAT prep company leaders, supported the decision, noting that online platforms made it easier for cheating rings to exploit the system through tactics like using cameras to capture test content or remotely accessing test takers' computers. Some cheating services reportedly charged thousands of dollars to help candidates gain an unfair advantage. LSAC added that technical difficulties also played a role in the change, with most scoring delays stemming from remote testing issues. On the January 2026 exam, 61% of test takers opted for in-person testing, suggesting a trend back toward traditional methods.US law school admissions test ends online option over cheating concerns | 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: Nelson Mandela ReleasedOn February 11, 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison in South Africa after 27 years of incarceration, marking a seismic shift in the country's legal and political landscape. Mandela's release followed a period of secret negotiations between the apartheid government and the African National Congress (ANC), and it signaled the beginning of the end of apartheid—a system of institutionalized racial segregation and oppression upheld by law. His imprisonment had become a global symbol of the fight against racial injustice and was frequently challenged by international human rights organizations and legal scholars as a violation of fundamental human rights.Mandela had been convicted in 1964 of sabotage and other charges under South Africa's Suppression of Communism Act, following the infamous Rivonia Trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, spending much of his sentence on Robben Island under harsh conditions. Over the decades, growing international sanctions and internal unrest made apartheid increasingly untenable.Then-President F.W. de Klerk's government began rolling back apartheid legislation in the late 1980s, and on February 2, 1990, de Klerk announced the unbanning of the ANC and his intention to release Mandela. Just nine days later, Mandela walked free, delivering a speech in Cape Town that emphasized reconciliation, peace, and the continuation of the struggle for full democratic rights.Mandela's release was not just a political milestone—it was a legal one, too. It reflected a move away from laws based on racial supremacy and toward a constitutional order grounded in human rights. This transformation would culminate in South Africa's 1996 Constitution, often lauded for its rights-based framework and independent judiciary.The Trump administration's plan to repeal the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding—the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—could reignite legal efforts to hold polluters accountable through public nuisance lawsuits. That finding enabled the EPA to regulate emissions from vehicles and power plants, but its reversal removes the legal framework that had previously shielded companies from such claims under a 2011 Supreme Court ruling. In that decision, the Court held that the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act displaced common-law nuisance suits against emitters. Without that EPA oversight, legal scholars believe plaintiffs may now argue that the courts are once again an appropriate venue for these claims.Public nuisance lawsuits, typically filed by states or municipalities, seek to hold companies accountable for harms caused to community health and safety. These cases have been historically difficult to win due to challenges in proving direct causation, but experts say the new regulatory gap could encourage a wave of litigation. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute have warned that repealing the endangerment finding could expose utilities to costly legal battles. While federal courts had largely blocked such claims, state courts have shown more openness, and the shift in federal policy may strengthen these legal efforts. Environmental advocates may now have renewed leverage to push power companies and other emitters into court.Trump's repeal of climate rule opens a ‘new front' for litigation | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee this week amid intensifying legal scrutiny over the Justice Department's management of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Lawmakers are expected to question Bondi about what they view as excessive redactions and the DOJ's withholding of key documents, actions that may conflict with a bipartisan federal law passed in 2025 mandating the broad release of Epstein-related materials. Legal analysts suggest the DOJ's reliance on legal privileges—such as investigatory and deliberative process exemptions—to justify redactions could face stiff challenges in court or through congressional oversight powers.The situation raises constitutional tensions between legislative oversight and executive privilege, particularly as the House panel, now under Republican control, examines whether the DOJ is shielding politically sensitive information. Some members of Congress have accused the Department of undermining transparency and potentially violating the statutory intent of the Epstein Disclosure Act, which narrowed the DOJ's discretion in withholding records tied to convicted sex offenders or deceased suspects like Epstein.Bondi's DOJ has been accused of prioritizing partisan enforcement over institutional neutrality, illustrated by failed prosecutions of Trump critics and an aggressive posture on immigration and protest-related cases. The sidelining of the DOJ's civil rights division and the refusal to investigate federal shootings has further fueled concerns over selective enforcement and erosion of prosecutorial independence. Bondi's testimony will serve as a key moment to defend the Department's use of legal redactions and its broader approach to politically charged prosecutions.Bondi to face questions on Epstein files in House testimony | ReutersInstagram chief Adam Mosseri is set to testify in a Los Angeles courtroom this week in a groundbreaking lawsuit that could reshape how U.S. law approaches the intersection of product design and youth mental health. The case centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff who alleges she became addicted to Instagram as a child due to its deliberately addictive interface—particularly the “endless scroll” feature that loads content continuously to hold user attention. Her lawyers argue that Instagram's design choices amount to a form of negligent product engineering that failed to account for known risks to children.This case raises novel legal questions: Can user interface (UI) design be treated as a defective product under tort law? Can tech companies be held liable not just for content but for the architecture of the platforms themselves? If the court accepts these arguments, it could establish precedent for treating addictive design as a public health harm similar to tobacco or opioid marketing practices.Mosseri is expected to face questioning over internal documents that, according to the plaintiff, show Meta was aware of the app's mental health impact on vulnerable teens. Meta counters that these documents reflect efforts to mitigate harm, not evidence of negligence. Still, the case may test the limits of Section 230 immunity, as it focuses not on third-party content, but the platform's own design—potentially sidestepping the traditional legal shield for tech companies.Hundreds of similar cases are pending, and this trial may serve as a bellwether for litigation nationwide. International developments, including Australia's ban on social media for children under 16, suggest this is a growing legal frontier.Instagram's leader to testify in court on app design, youth mental health | ReutersNovo Nordisk's recent patent infringement lawsuit against Hims & Hers marks a pivotal legal development in the pharmaceutical industry's battle with telehealth providers distributing compounded drugs. The suit, filed in Delaware federal court, targets Hims' sales of compounded semaglutide—the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic—claiming these formulations infringe Novo's patents. While compounding is allowed under certain FDA exemptions, those exemptions do not shield pharmacies or telehealth platforms from patent liability. This case challenges the assumption that FDA compliance protects against infringement claims, exposing a gray area where regulatory and intellectual property regimes collide.Historically, brand-name drugmakers focused on trademark challenges over how compounded drugs were marketed. Novo's move into patent litigation signals a strategic escalation: it's not about branding anymore—it's about the act of making and selling the compound itself. Experts highlight that this is likely the first time a brand drug company has pursued patent claims directly against a compounding pharmacy or telehealth distributor, suggesting the industry now sees these entities as substantial commercial threats.The case also underscores a novel enforcement strategy: suing the telehealth platform facilitating sales rather than the dispersed network of compounding pharmacies, streamlining legal action and potentially setting precedent for centralized liability. Hims, already under regulatory scrutiny, had just halted plans to sell compounded semaglutide pills but remains a target due to its involvement in injectable forms.The outcome of this case may clarify how FDA-sanctioned compounding intersects with patent protections and could define the boundaries for how far telehealth companies can go in offering customized versions of patented drugs.Novo's GLP-1 Patent Suit Against Hims Takes Aim at Compounding 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: 25th AmendmentOn February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, formally addressing presidential succession and disability for the first time in constitutional text. The need for such clarity had become urgent after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and President Dwight D. Eisenhower's repeated illnesses during his terms. Prior to this amendment, there was no definitive constitutional mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency or for managing presidential incapacity. The 25th Amendment established four key sections, each designed to ensure governmental stability during times of crisis.Section 1 confirmed that if a president dies, resigns, or is removed, the vice president becomes president—not just acting president. Section 2 allowed for the appointment of a new vice president, with confirmation by both the House and Senate, in the event of a vacancy. This provision was put to use shortly after its ratification when Gerald Ford was appointed vice president in 1973 following Spiro Agnew's resignation. Section 3 allowed a president to voluntarily transfer power to the vice president by submitting a written declaration to Congress—used during temporary medical procedures like surgeries.Most controversial and significant is Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or another body designated by Congress) to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This provision has never been fully invoked but has been a topic of discussion during times of perceived presidential instability. It establishes a legal mechanism for removing a president against their will, albeit temporarily, with congressional oversight. The amendment reflects a post-World War II concern for continuity of leadership in a nuclear age. Its ratification marks a critical evolution in constitutional law, ensuring the executive branch remains functional even under extraordinary circumstances.A federal lawsuit filed in Texas alleges that an 18‑month‑old girl detained by U.S. immigration authorities was sent back into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after being hospitalized for a life‑threatening respiratory illness and then denied the medications doctors prescribed.According to the filing, Amalia and her parents were held at the family detention center in Dilley, Texas after a routine immigration check‑in in December. The toddler became severely ill in January with extremely high fever and breathing problems, and a hospital diagnosed her with multiple serious infections including COVID‑19, pneumonia and RSV. After about 10 days in the hospital, she was discharged with a nebulizer, respiratory medication and nutritional supplements—but those were confiscated when she was returned to the detention facility.The lawsuit says her parents repeatedly tried to obtain prescribed treatment from detention staff but were forced to wait in long lines and often were denied, contributing to the child's health deterioration. Legal advocacy led to the family's release after the emergency court filing; attorneys contend the case reflects broader problems with medical care, conditions and protections for children and families in immigration custody.Toddler was returned to ICE custody and denied medication after hospitalization, lawsuit says | ReutersThe Trump administration is proposing a significant change to federal employment law that would restrict fired federal workers from appealing their terminations to the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Under the plan, workers would instead have to appeal to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—a shift critics say would compromise impartiality, as the OPM director reports directly to the president.The MSPB, historically tasked with mediating disputes between federal employees and agencies, experienced a 266% spike in appeals cases during Trump's second term, likely due to a surge in federal job cuts. In 2025, the federal workforce shrank by 317,000 employees, though OPM claims most departures were voluntary through buyouts rather than firings—an assertion not independently verified.This latest proposal would further President Trump's second-term agenda to reduce the size of the federal workforce while also narrowing employees' legal options for challenging dismissals. Trump has also weakened job protection enforcement by removing officials from agencies that safeguard civil service rights. Critics argue the proposal consolidates power over personnel disputes within the executive branch, potentially eroding longstanding civil service protections.Trump seeks to limit legal options for fired federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week is about tax holidays for data centers–or the folly in offering them. India's bold new play to become the backbone of global digital infrastructure isn't just about its headline-grabbing 20-year tax holiday for data centers. The real shift is happening in the fine print—a 15% safe harbor for transfer pricing that removes much of the risk multinationals face when operating across borders. If a company like Microsoft India applies a simple 15% markup on services sold to its U.S. parent, the Indian government agrees not to challenge the pricing. That's not just a tax break—it's operational certainty, and it makes India's offer much more attractive than anything U.S. states currently have on the table.In contrast, American states are still offering scattered subsidies—property tax breaks, zoning perks, utility discounts—without any unified vision or reliable regulatory structure. There's no equivalent to India's safe harbor. No clarity on transfer pricing. No coordination across state lines. The result is what I see as economic development policy by improv, where officials hand out incentives like they're bidding on a sports arena rather than negotiating infrastructure strategy.And what do U.S. taxpayers get in return? A burst of construction, a few permanent jobs, and a long-term commitment to expensive infrastructure upgrades for data centers that don't meaningfully plug into the local economy. Meanwhile, India is making an offer that fits squarely onto a multinational's balance sheet—pre-agreed pricing, national alignment, and a clear path to long-term cost savings.I don't think the solution is to try to beat India at its own game. But if states are going to offer incentives, they need to extract something real in return: energy infrastructure, broadband expansion, or compute resources that benefit the public. Otherwise, they're just footing the bill for someone else's global expansion. 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: Opium is Prohibited in the USOn February 9, 1909, the United States took its first significant federal step toward regulating narcotics when Congress passed a law banning the importation of opium for non-medical purposes. The act, officially titled “An Act to Prohibit the Importation and Use of Opium for Other Than Medicinal Purposes,” marked the beginning of a century-long evolution in American drug policy. While opium had long been associated with addiction and social issues—particularly in Chinese immigrant communities—prior regulation had occurred mostly at the state and local levels. This federal statute aimed to curb both domestic consumption and the growing international trade in opium, which had become a concern for moral reformers, physicians, and public officials.The 1909 law was as much a product of racialized anxieties and diplomatic concerns as it was a health policy. U.S. officials were influenced by the growing global temperance movement and international agreements like those discussed at the International Opium Commission in Shanghai that same year. Domestically, the law paved the way for a broader federal role in drug control, leading to later landmark legislation such as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. It also helped define narcotics as a matter of federal concern rather than simply a moral or local issue.While the 1909 statute was limited in scope—it did not criminalize possession or use, only importation—it established the principle that Congress could regulate substances in the interest of public health and welfare. That principle would be expanded in later decades as the War on Drugs developed. The opium ban illustrates how early 20th-century American legal policy began to intertwine with international diplomacy, race, and evolving conceptions of public health.A landmark trial began this week in a California state court to determine whether Instagram and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly harming a young woman's mental health through addictive platform design. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., claims that Meta (parent company of Instagram and Facebook) and Google (which owns YouTube) designed their platforms in a way that fostered addiction from a young age, contributing to her depression and suicidal ideation. Her legal team argues the companies were negligent, failed to provide warnings, and that the platforms substantially contributed to her psychological harm.A verdict in her favor could open the door for thousands of similar lawsuits currently pending against major tech firms like Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok. Notably, Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff before trial, while Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify. The defense plans to emphasize external influences in K.G.M.'s life and highlight efforts they've made around youth safety.The case challenges longstanding U.S. legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields internet companies from liability for user-generated content. However, if the jury accepts the argument that the harm stems from platform design rather than content, it could weaken those defenses. Parallel legal battles are underway, including over 2,300 federal lawsuits and a separate trial in New Mexico where Meta is accused of enabling child sexual exploitation.Instagram, YouTube addiction trial kicks off in Los Angeles | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal court ruling that requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to release frozen funding for the $16 billion Hudson Tunnel Project, which aims to upgrade vital rail infrastructure connecting New York and New Jersey. Judge Jeannette Vargas issued a preliminary injunction ordering the unfreezing of the funds after officials from both states warned that construction would cease due to lack of financing. The administration filed a notice of appeal two days later.The funding had been halted in September pending a review of the project's adherence to new federal restrictions on race- and sex-based criteria in contracting. According to a source, Trump recently proposed unfreezing the money if Democrats agreed to rename Washington Dulles Airport and New York's Penn Station after him—an offer that was widely condemned.The Hudson Tunnel, which was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, remains a critical piece of rail infrastructure, handling over 200,000 passengers and 425 trains each day. The Gateway Development Commission, which oversees the project, expressed readiness to resume work once funding is reinstated. Approximately $2 billion of the $15 billion federal allocation—approved under the Biden administration—has already been spent.Trump administration appeals ruling on releasing New York City tunnel funds | ReutersA divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's policy of mandating detention without bond for individuals arrested during immigration enforcement operations. The 2-1 decision is the first appellate ruling to affirm the policy, despite widespread opposition from hundreds of lower-court judges across the country who have deemed it unlawful. The ruling applies to Texas and Louisiana, states that hold the largest populations of immigration detainees.The policy relies on an expanded interpretation of the term “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law. Traditionally applied to individuals arriving at the border, the Department of Homeland Security argued in 2025 that it also applies to undocumented individuals already residing in the U.S. This interpretation was adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals and made mandatory by immigration judges nationwide.The case before the court involved two Mexican nationals, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who had previously persuaded lower courts they were wrongly denied bond hearings. The appeals court reversed those rulings, with Judge Edith Jones writing that the statute's plain text supported the administration's view. Judge Dana Douglas dissented, arguing that the interpretation stretched beyond what Congress intended in the 1996 immigration law.Other circuit courts are expected to weigh in on similar challenges, and the issue may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.US appeals court upholds Trump's immigration detention policy | ReutersA federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration's request to delay proceedings in its appeal to reinstate executive orders targeting four major U.S. law firms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the cases—challenging orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—will move forward and be combined with a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid's revoked government security clearance.The Justice Department had sought to postpone the law firm appeals until after the Zaid case was decided, a move that could have delayed resolution for months. But the court rejected that approach, siding with the law firms, which argued they deserved a timely judgment on whether the government unlawfully targeted them.Trump's executive orders accused the firms of using the legal system against him and criticized their diversity policies, directing the government to strip them of security access and limit their interactions with federal agencies. Four federal judges previously struck down the orders as unconstitutional, finding they violated free speech and due process rights. The administration is now appealing both those rulings and the one involving Zaid.Trump administration loses bid to delay appeals over law firm executive orders | 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: 20th AmendmentOn February 6, 1933, the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially went into effect, reshaping the timeline of federal political power transitions in the United States. Commonly known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” it was ratified just weeks earlier, on January 23, 1933, but became operative on this day. The amendment moved the inauguration dates of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20 and newly elected members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.This was a significant reform. Previously, there had been a long delay—about four months—between election and inauguration. The result was a period where outgoing officials retained power despite potentially losing their mandates, often leading to inaction and political stagnation. This was particularly problematic during times of crisis. For example, after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1932 election, he had to wait until March to take office while the nation was deep in the throes of the Great Depression, and President Hoover remained largely inactive.The 20th Amendment also clarified procedures for what should happen if the president-elect dies before taking office, a scenario not fully accounted for in earlier constitutional provisions. Section 3 addresses this contingency, while Section 4 gives Congress the authority to legislate procedures for succession and emergencies.By speeding up the transfer of power, the amendment reduced the influence of “lame duck” sessions, promoting a more responsive and democratic governance structure. It also underscored a constitutional shift toward greater efficiency in the federal system.The Trump administration has appointed 33 new immigration judges, 27 of whom are temporary, following the dismissal or departure of over 100 judges since Trump's return to office in January 2025. This reshaping of the immigration court system is part of a broader push to increase deportations and speed up case processing. The newly sworn-in judges will serve in courts across 15 states, including Texas, California, and New York.A significant number of the appointees have military experience—half of the permanent judges and all of the temporary ones—reflecting a Pentagon-supported effort to deploy Defense Department lawyers into immigration roles. Critics, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argue that the mass firings have severely depleted judicial capacity, especially amid a record backlog of 3.2 million pending immigration cases.The administration is also set to introduce a regulation reducing the time migrants have to appeal deportation rulings from 30 to 10 days. This fast-track process would give the Board of Immigration Appeals greater authority to summarily dismiss appeals, a move likely to draw legal challenges given prior rulings against similar reinterpretations of immigration law.Trump administration names 33 new immigration judges, most with military backgrounds | ReutersBrad Karp has stepped down as chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP following revelations of his extensive correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. The emails, released by the Department of Justice, revealed years of personal and professional interaction between Karp and Epstein, including Karp's praise of legal arguments dismissing victims' claims and discussions about sensitive financial matters involving Epstein's associates. Though Karp has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing, the disclosures created internal and public pressure leading to his resignation.Karp will remain at the firm in a non-leadership role, while corporate department head Scott Barshay has assumed the chairmanship. Barshay is known for high-profile mergers, including deals involving Chevron and Anheuser-Busch. Karp had led the firm since 2008, building its revenue significantly and taking on both corporate defense and progressive political causes.The fallout also reignited criticism over Paul Weiss' controversial 2025 deal with the Trump administration. In that arrangement, Karp brokered pro bono legal commitments in exchange for the rescission of an executive order that limited the firm's federal work—an effort that involved direct lobbying by Robert Kraft and a meeting with Donald Trump.Epstein emails lead Brad Karp to resign as Paul Weiss law firm chairman | ReutersA federal jury in Phoenix has ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean, who said she was assaulted by a driver at age 19. The trial, the first of over 3,000 consolidated cases, served as a bellwether to assess the legal strength and settlement value of similar claims. The jury found the driver acted as an agent of Uber, making the company liable, but declined to award punitive damages.Dean's lawyers argued Uber knowingly failed to implement safety improvements despite rising reports of assaults. The case highlighted Uber's marketing to women as a safe option, which attorneys said misled passengers about real risks. Dean was intoxicated when she ordered a ride in Arizona in 2023 and was allegedly attacked after the driver stopped the vehicle.Uber denied liability, stating the driver had no criminal record and that the incident was unforeseeable. The company emphasized that it passed background checks and claimed the jury's decision supported its broader safety efforts, though it plans to appeal.The trial has implications for both Uber and Lyft, whose shares dipped following the verdict. Analysts believe the case may lead to enhanced background screening across the ride-hailing industry.Uber ordered to pay $8.5 million in trial over driver sex assault claims | ReutersA legal fight has emerged between a group of U.S. states and pharmacist T.J. Novak, a whistleblower seeking a portion of the $4.7 billion opioid settlement the states reached with Walgreens. Novak previously filed a federal False Claims Act case accusing Walgreens of unlawfully filling opioid prescriptions and billing government health programs. The U.S. government settled with Walgreens for $300 million, including $150 million tied to Novak's claims—earning him a whistleblower payout of over $25 million.Novak now argues that the states' massive 2022 settlement with Walgreens also resolved his state-level claims under their respective false claims statutes, entitling him to additional compensation. The states dispute this, saying their deal addressed public nuisance concerns, not false claims violations. They warn that granting Novak a cut would force courts into a complex and inconsistent analysis across 28 different state laws and could open the door to broad whistleblower entitlements in future state actions.Key states like Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Virginia filed briefs opposing Novak's claim, stressing the differences in statutory frameworks and the nature of the claims resolved. The outcome could impact future whistleblower litigation involving parallel state and federal claims tied to nationwide corporate settlements.States square off with opioids whistleblower over payout from $4.7 billion Walgreens settlement | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Felix Mendelssohn.This week's closing theme is Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Mendelssohn, a composer whose refined lyricism shaped the early Romantic era. Born in 1809, Mendelssohn was a prodigy who bridged Classical form and Romantic expression with grace and clarity. His Lieder ohne Worte—or “Songs Without Words”—are brief piano pieces that aim to convey the emotional depth of a song, but without lyrics. Op. 109, one of the last in the series, is especially introspective and serene, a quiet farewell rendered in music alone.Today, February 6, holds subtle resonance in Mendelssohn's legacy. Though his death is commonly dated to November 4, 1847, some historical sources using the Julian calendar recorded it as February 6, making this date a quiet point of remembrance in certain circles. In that light, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, feels like a particularly appropriate selection—a final musical gesture from a composer who believed some feelings transcend words.It's also a fitting close to a week of heavy stories—legal struggles, political reshuffling, and institutional reckonings. Mendelssohn offers no commentary, just clarity and calm. In the hush of his music, we're reminded that reflection doesn't always need a headline.Without further ado, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe