Minimum Competence

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

This Day in Legal History: FDR's Court Packing PlanOn February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, better known as the “court-packing plan.” This controversial legislation aimed to expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to as many as fifteen. Roosevelt's justification was to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, but the underlying motive was widely understood to be frustration with the Court's consistent invalidation of New Deal legislation. The plan would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70½ who refused to retire.At the time, the Supreme Court had struck down several key components of Roosevelt's New Deal, including the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Although Roosevelt had just won re-election in a landslide in 1936, the proposal met immediate and bipartisan resistance in Congress and the press. Critics argued it threatened the separation of powers and judicial independence. Even members of Roosevelt's own party viewed the move as a dangerous overreach.Ultimately, the bill failed in the Senate. However, the controversy arguably pressured the Court to adopt a more favorable view of New Deal legislation. Justice Owen Roberts's shift in support of certain New Deal programs came to be dubbed “the switch in time that saved nine.” While Roosevelt did not get to add new justices through his plan, he eventually appointed eight Supreme Court justices over his long presidency, reshaping the Court over time.Georgia's Fulton County has filed a legal challenge over an FBI seizure of 2020 election records, arguing the search was overly broad and requesting the return of the documents. The motion, filed in federal court, also seeks to unseal the affidavit behind the warrant. The FBI searched the Fulton County Election Hub in Union City on January 28 as part of its investigation into President Donald Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud in Georgia during the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. According to the warrant, agents were authorized to confiscate all physical ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls from multiple voting methods. County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. criticized the process, noting the absence of an inventory or orderly transition of records, which raises concerns about potential document loss or tampering. He expressed skepticism about the value of any returned materials under such circumstances. The raid, perceived by local officials as politically motivated, has sparked fears of federal overreach and interference ahead of the 2026 midterms.Georgia's Fulton County challenges seizure of election records | ReutersJones Day, a major international law firm, has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against private equity firm Centre Lane Partners and multiple affiliated companies, alleging over $9.6 million in unpaid legal fees. The firm claims it served as Centre Lane's outside counsel since 2018, providing legal services across litigation, financing, acquisitions, and regulatory matters. Though Centre Lane reportedly had a consistent payment history, Jones Day alleges payments ceased in 2024 despite continued promises. Relying on assurances that payments were forthcoming, Jones Day says it rendered millions more in services, which it now claims were based on false representations.Notably, more than half of the unpaid fees stem from Jones Day's defense work in an ongoing antitrust case involving a Pennsylvania glass plant closure and an FTC investigation. As of last month, Jones Day began formally withdrawing from representing Centre Lane in active cases, and the law firm Greenberg Traurig has taken over in the antitrust matter. Among the defendants named are Centre Lane portfolio companies, including Anchor Hocking and Corelle Brands. The case remains unassigned in New York's Supreme Court, with no counsel yet listed for the defendants.Law firm Jones Day sues private equity firm, alleging $9.6 million in unpaid fees | ReutersThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified Abbott's recall of certain glucose monitoring devices as a Class I recall—the most serious level—after the products were linked to seven deaths and 860 serious injuries. The affected devices include specific lots of the FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors, which have been found to display inaccurately low blood sugar readings. Such faulty readings can lead users to make harmful treatment decisions, such as consuming too many carbohydrates or incorrectly adjusting insulin doses.Abbott disclosed that the devices may provide incorrect readings over extended periods, increasing the risk of serious medical complications for users who rely on continuous glucose data. The recall and its classification signal heightened concern from federal health regulators due to the potential for severe harm or death. As of early January, these issues had already caused significant patient harm. Abbott has not publicly detailed the total number of units affected or the geographic scope of the recall.Abbott recalls glucose sensors after seven deaths linked to faulty readings | ReutersIn an exclusive obtained by Bloomberg Law, the U.S. Department of Justice has directed all 93 U.S. attorney's offices to designate prosecutors for newly formed “emergency jump teams” by February 6. These teams are intended to provide short-term support in jurisdictions experiencing critical events—particularly those involving alleged assaults on or obstruction of law enforcement. The internal memo from DOJ Executive Office Director Francey Hakes outlines the initiative as a rapid-response measure to bolster prosecutorial presence in areas facing urgent demands.The move follows a wave of resignations in the Minneapolis U.S. attorney's office amid growing discontent over political targeting and controversial assignments, such as a disputed investigation into the widow of a protester killed by an ICE officer. While the memo does not directly mention Minneapolis, it aligns with Trump administration efforts to maintain aggressive law enforcement in left-leaning jurisdictions facing staff shortages.Offices previously affected by similar surges, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and D.C., have also suffered attrition, partly due to repeated grand jury refusals to indict protestors. The memo frames the jump teams not as litigators but as support staff to assist in command operations—handling triage, reviewing legal filings, and managing logistics.The order coincides with overt recruitment of ideologically aligned attorneys, including a public social media call for applicants who support Trump's anti-crime platform. Additionally, the jump teams will help implement Attorney General Pam Bondi's December directive to prioritize investigations into leftist groups like antifa.DOJ Orders Emergency Surge Prosecutors From All US Attorneys (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: BlockburgerOn February 4, 1932, the United States Supreme Court decided Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), a case that established an enduring rule in American criminal law known as the Blockburger test. This test is used to determine whether two offenses are sufficiently distinct to permit multiple punishments or prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.In the case, the defendant was charged with multiple violations of the Harrison Narcotics Act for selling morphine on different occasions. The legal question was whether he could be prosecuted separately for each sale and for selling without proper prescription and for selling not in the original stamped package, even if these occurred during the same transaction.The Court held that each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. If that's the case, then they are distinct for double jeopardy purposes. This became the “same elements” test, sometimes called the Blockburger test, and it remains a key tool for analyzing double jeopardy claims today.Notably, the test doesn't focus on whether the charges arise from the same conduct or transaction, but on whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.This legal principle has been cited in thousands of cases, and it continues to shape how prosecutors and courts evaluate overlapping criminal charges.Ryan W. Routh, convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump weeks before the 2024 presidential election, is scheduled for sentencing on Wednesday. Prosecutors are seeking a life sentence, citing months of planning, the use of disguises and multiple cellphones, and Routh's readiness to kill others to carry out the plot. He was arrested near Trump's West Palm Beach golf course in September 2024 after fleeing the scene and leaving behind a rifle and gear resembling body armor. At trial, Routh represented himself, making erratic statements and offering little in the way of a legal defense. He was convicted of five charges, including attempted assassination and illegal firearm possession. Routh claims he did not intend to kill Trump and has requested a 27-year sentence along with psychological treatment. The incident was the second assassination attempt on Trump during the campaign season. Prosecutors emphasized that Routh's actions could have succeeded had it not been for Secret Service intervention. Following the verdict, Routh attempted to stab himself with a pen in court and had to be restrained. Trump praised the conviction, calling Routh “an evil man with an evil intention.”Man convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump to be sentenced | ReutersNetflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos faced sharp questioning from U.S. senators over the company's proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, a deal that could reshape the streaming and entertainment landscape. At a Senate antitrust hearing led by Republican Mike Lee, lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that the merger could reduce competition, limit job opportunities for entertainment workers, and reduce content diversity. Lee warned the deal might let Netflix dominate streaming and steer major Warner Bros franchises away from theaters or rivals. Sarandos defended Netflix's position, citing competition from platforms like YouTube, though senators noted YouTube's ad-based model differs from subscription services.The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the merger alongside a competing bid from Paramount Skydance. Paramount's proposal faces financing challenges, and its CEO, David Ellison, has ties to Donald Trump, raising political questions. Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioned Sarandos on whether Trump would influence the deal's approval, a notion Sarandos said he couldn't confirm. Sarandos argued that all viewing time on television is in direct competition, but senators remained skeptical of Netflix's claims that its competition includes ad-supported platforms. The hearing reflects broader unease about consolidation in streaming, and the DOJ's decision will ultimately shape the industry's direction.Netflix co-CEO faces grilling by US Senate panel over Warner Bros deal | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice and a majority of state attorneys general are appealing a major antitrust ruling in the case against Google over its dominance in the online search market. Although a federal judge previously determined that Google held a monopoly, he declined to impose significant structural remedies, such as requiring Google to sell its Chrome browser or stop paying Apple to make Google the default search engine on Apple devices. The government's appeal is expected to target this leniency.Google is also appealing the ruling and has requested a delay in compliance with the judge's order to share certain data with competitors while the appeals process is ongoing. The case, originally filed in 2020, marks one of the most significant antitrust challenges against a tech company in decades. The court noted that newer players like OpenAI have recently emerged, potentially altering the competitive landscape.The ruling was widely viewed as a partial win for Google, frustrating regulators who had hoped for broader changes to curb the company's influence in digital advertising and search. The appeal signals continued government efforts to pursue more aggressive antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.US files appeal in Google search antitrust 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: Fifteenth Amendment RatifiedOn February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. The amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Its ratification was the third and final of the Reconstruction Amendments, following the Thirteenth (abolishing slavery) and Fourteenth (guaranteeing equal protection and due process) Amendments.The Fifteenth Amendment was a direct response to the systemic disenfranchisement of Black Americans in the post-Civil War South. While it granted a legal foundation for Black men's suffrage, implementation faced immediate resistance. Southern states adopted literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other discriminatory practices to circumvent the amendment and suppress Black political participation.Despite its passage, the amendment's guarantees would not be meaningfully enforced until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nearly a century later. The legal battles stemming from the Fifteenth Amendment's promise have shaped much of the country's voting rights jurisprudence and continue to echo in current debates about voter ID laws, redistricting, and access to the ballot box.A U.S. federal judge is set to hear arguments on February 5 regarding Danish company Ørsted's request to lift the Trump administration's pause on its offshore Sunrise Wind project near Long Island, New York. Ørsted has asked for a preliminary injunction, warning that without a decision by February 6, it could lose access to a specialized vessel crucial for cable installation, putting the project's timeline, financial viability, and even survival at risk. The Interior Department halted five offshore wind projects in December, citing newly obtained, classified national security concerns, particularly radar interference. Ørsted's filing states the company has already committed over $7 billion to the Sunrise Wind project, which is about 45% complete and projected to power nearly 600,000 homes by October.Judge Royce Lamberth, who previously granted an injunction for Ørsted's Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, will preside over the case. Four similar wind developments have already won legal relief allowing construction to continue during litigation. The ongoing delays reflect broader tensions between offshore wind expansion and the Trump administration's skepticism of the technology, as well as evolving security concerns.US judge to consider last project challenge to Trump offshore wind pause | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. Pretti was killed during an enforcement operation that has since drawn national outrage and led the Trump administration to alter its tactics in Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the FBI is conducting a preliminary review, with potential involvement from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, though he emphasized that the investigation is still in early stages.Video footage verified by Reuters shows Pretti being tackled by agents while holding a phone, and an officer retrieving a firearm from his body just before shots were fired. The Justice Department said a formal criminal civil rights probe would only proceed if the evidence supports it. Local officials have voiced distrust of the federal response and are conducting their own inquiry. Pretti is the second protester killed by federal agents in Minneapolis this month, and his family, represented by attorney Steve Schleicher, is demanding a transparent and impartial investigation. So far, no similar federal probe has been opened into the earlier shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer.US Justice Dept opens civil rights probe into Alex Pretti shooting, official says | ReutersIn this week's column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Volkswagen's decision to cancel plans for a new Audi plant in the U.S. highlights the limitations of using tariffs as a cornerstone of industrial policy. The assumption underpinning tariff-heavy strategies is that the U.S. market is irresistible enough to force global firms to onshore production, even as tariffs erode that market's size and appeal. Tariffs have come to function like sin taxes—meant to discourage consumption—but unlike cigarettes or soda, the goal with trade policy is not abstention, but investment and economic engagement. Instead, firms like VW are responding by pulling back, as higher costs reduce consumer demand and make U.S. market share too small to justify large-scale investment. The belief that global manufacturers can swiftly build U.S. capacity ignores the time, cost, and uncertainty involved, especially in capital-intensive sectors. VW's exit is rational: it doesn't make financial sense to break ground on a multibillion-dollar plant when the target market is shrinking and returns are questionable.Policymakers need to move beyond blunt tools and design trade incentives based on real market data, such as U.S. demand and potential return on investment. That means requiring ROI modeling before tariffs are imposed, and asking whether the targeted company has enough exposure to be moved by them. If the answer is no, we risk losing access to competitive products, jobs, and consumer choice—not gaining them. Trade policy should be surgical, not punitive, and should acknowledge that capital follows incentives, not threats.In a piece I wrote for Forbes late last week, and with apologies for a double dose of me today: I examined California's long-running flirtation with a mileage-based tax to replace its declining gas tax revenues—and how what began as a test program has quietly become a form of policymaking through delay. In 2014, the state authorized a pilot program to study a “road usage charge,” a per-mile fee designed to keep transportation funding solvent as gas consumption drops. That pilot wrapped up in 2017 and showed the system works: vehicles can be tracked, billing can be simulated, and the technical challenges are manageable. But nearly a decade later, no mileage tax has been implemented, and new legislation—AB 1421—would extend the advisory committee until 2035.The real issue now isn't feasibility but political avoidance. The state has drifted into a passive strategy where permanent pilots and advisory boards take the place of real decisions. This kind of inertia has a name: policy drift—when the law remains formally unchanged, but materially obsolete. California's ongoing study phase has become a way to defer a difficult conversation about revenue and equity in a post-gasoline economy. The technology exists, and other states have already tested it. What's missing is political will and public engagement.AB 1421 doesn't collect revenue or educate voters—it simply extends the status quo under the guise of preparation. From the outside, it looks like planning. In practice, it's a weather balloon designed to measure political tolerance, not policy readiness.California Mileage Tax—Pilot Programs And Permanent Policy Inertia 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: Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoOn February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, officially ending the Mexican-American War and significantly altering the legal and territorial landscape of the United States. The treaty ceded vast swaths of land to the U.S., including present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of several other western states—about half of Mexico's territory at the time. In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.25 million in claims by American citizens against Mexico. Legally, the treaty promised to protect the property rights and civil liberties of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, but these promises were inconsistently honored in practice.The treaty's ratification triggered significant legal and constitutional debates about the extension of slavery into new territories, setting the stage for the intensifying sectional conflicts that led to the Civil War. It also marked the beginning of long-standing disputes over land grants and water rights that would shape western property law. Moreover, the treaty's vague wording left many issues—such as tribal sovereignty and citizenship—unresolved, leading to future litigation and policy struggles.The treaty was signed in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo, near Mexico City, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in March 1848. It remains a foundational document in U.S. legal history, frequently cited in discussions of land rights, citizenship, and the limits of treaty enforcement.Our first story today is a bit off topic.In today's digital world, every click, swipe, and login happens under a legal regime you didn't negotiate—Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and community guidelines that quietly shape your rights and obligations online. These documents form a system of private lawmaking, where companies act as legislators, drafting rules users must follow, often with little recourse or transparency. You don't sign them, but courts often treat them as binding contracts. Clauses about arbitration, content ownership, surveillance, and data sharing carry real legal weight. Yet these terms can change overnight, unilaterally, and without notice.TOSTracker was created to bring transparency to this ecosystem. It's a non-commercial research tool that tracks and archives the evolution of digital contracts over time. With over 150 companies and nearly 250 historical versions of key documents thus far, TOSTracker offers timestamped, hash-verified, and citable records of how these texts change. It provides full version histories, detects redlines at the word and section level, and supports programmatic access through an API. Whether you're studying arbitration creep, GDPR compliance, or how moderation rules evolve, TOSTracker gives you the empirical backbone to do it.All content is normalized and archived via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, with cryptographic hashes ensuring document integrity. Importantly, it doesn't interpret the law—it captures the text and structure so you can. For legal researchers, privacy advocates, and anyone concerned with digital governance, this is a window into how private law is made, revised, and enforced online. It's not a product; it's a dataset, an archive, and a call to look more closely at the legal architecture of everyday tech.We're also actively seeking contributors to help expand the archive. If you come across a consumer-facing legal document—like a Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, community guidelines, or EULA—that isn't already tracked, you can submit it directly through the site. This includes documents behind logins, from smaller platforms, or covering underrepresented industries and regions. Submissions help close coverage gaps, diversify the dataset, and improve the foundation for legal research into how digital rights are defined and redefined over time. Your input directly supports transparency in an area where the law is often invisible.Check it out at tostracker.app if your research overlaps with digital contracts, user rights, or the evolving boundary between public law and platform governance.The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sent warning letters to 42 major law firms over concerns that their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices may be anticompetitive. The FTC emphasized that firm-wide agreements to meet diversity benchmarks—particularly those tied to programs like Diversity Lab's certification—could unlawfully restrict competition in the legal labor market by influencing hiring, compensation, or promotions. These letters arrive amid a broader rollback of DEI initiatives under President Donald Trump's administration, which has eliminated related programs in government and targeted private sector efforts.Firms such as Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Skadden Arps, and Latham & Watkins—some of which had previously been challenged by Trump-era executive orders—are among those named. Some reached compromises with the White House, offering pro bono legal work in exchange for eased scrutiny, while others fought and won legal challenges against the orders. The FTC's scrutiny centers on participation in Diversity Lab's voluntary DEI certification, which encourages firms to ensure at least 30% of leadership candidates are from underrepresented groups. Though previously upheld in court as non-discriminatory, the FTC now frames such collective DEI practices as potentially violating competition law.US Federal Trade Commission warns law firms about DEI hiring | ReutersImmigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in Boston challenging a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that allows agents to enter homes without judicial warrants. The suit, brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, targets a May 2025 memo—recently revealed via a whistleblower complaint—that permits ICE officers to use administrative warrants instead of warrants signed by a federal judge. These administrative forms, issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security, were previously insufficient for home entries under longstanding practice.The plaintiffs argue that using such warrants for home arrests violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal advocates claim the policy removes a crucial constitutional safeguard just as ICE ramps up enforcement tactics in states like Minnesota, where multiple recent actions have already been deemed unlawful by judges. The lawsuit comes after fatal incidents in Minneapolis during anti-ICE protests, intensifying scrutiny of federal immigration operations.ICE officials defend the policy, asserting that individuals subject to removal have already received due process. However, the lawsuit challenges that rationale, pointing out that due process does not override constitutional protections against warrantless home intrusions.Lawsuit challenges ICE ability to enter homes without warrants from US judges | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is facing federal charges over his role in covering a protest at a Minnesota church opposing President Trump's immigration crackdown. The protest, which disrupted a church service in St. Paul on January 18, was livestreamed by Lemon and targeted the church because one pastor was allegedly also an ICE official. Lemon was arrested by the FBI, spent a night in custody, and appeared in court where he confirmed he plans to plead not guilty. He and six others, including independent journalist Georgia Fort, were indicted under laws prohibiting obstruction of access to houses of worship—a legal framework typically used against abortion clinic protests.Free press advocates and constitutional lawyers are raising concerns about the charges, framing them as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration targeting critics, including journalists. Lemon's attorneys argue this is a political prosecution meant to suppress press freedom and distract from ongoing crises. In the archived livestream, Lemon is seen documenting the protest rather than leading it, further fueling First Amendment concerns. The DOJ's case hinges on a controversial interpretation of laws rarely, if ever, used to prosecute journalists for protest coverage after the fact. Legal experts say there is no clear precedent for the charges, and press freedom groups are warning of escalating threats to constitutional protections.Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon faces Minnesota protest charges | 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: Hitler Appointed ChancellorOn January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, a moment that marked the beginning of one of the darkest legal and political transformations in modern history. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not seize power in a coup; his rise was accomplished through entirely legal means under the Weimar Constitution. Once in office, the Nazi regime moved swiftly to erode civil liberties, beginning with the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended constitutional protections like freedom of speech, assembly, and due process. This decree, signed by President Hindenburg, gave the government extraordinary powers under the guise of national emergency.Shortly thereafter, the Enabling Act of March 1933 granted Hitler the authority to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, including laws that violated the constitution itself. The judiciary, instead of serving as a check on executive overreach, largely complied or cooperated, enabling legal persecution of Jews, political dissidents, and other marginalized groups. Laws were passed systematically to isolate, disenfranchise, and ultimately exterminate entire populations, all with the appearance of legality and bureaucratic order.What happened in Germany is a stark reminder that authoritarianism often arrives wrapped in the language of law and order. The rule of law is not inherently just—it depends on who writes the laws, how they are enforced, and whether constitutional checks are robust enough to resist consolidation of power. Today, as various democracies grapple with executive overreach, politicized judiciaries, and emergency powers, the legal path taken in 1933 offers a chilling historical parallel. The slow erosion of legal norms, once set in motion, can be devastatingly hard to reverse.A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living and working in the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority by terminating protections that had been extended under the Biden administration. The court emphasized that, since Congress created TPS 35 years ago, no administration had claimed the power to cancel a country's designation while it remained in effect. Judges found that the statute's language clearly limits executive authority and does not permit unilateral termination mid-designation.Despite the ruling, the decision will not immediately restore protections because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the policy to remain in effect while the case continues on appeal. The court noted that the termination has left hundreds of thousands of migrants in fear of detention, deportation, and family separation, often to countries where they previously faced violence. The ruling also upheld a finding that TPS protections for Haitians were unlawfully ended, though the administration has pursued separate efforts to terminate those protections. One judge wrote separately to argue that the policy was influenced by racist stereotyping, citing public statements by senior officials about Venezuelan and Haitian migrants. Advocacy groups welcomed the ruling but stressed that, because of the Supreme Court's order, affected migrants remain vulnerable in the meantime.Trump administration unlawfully ended Venezuelans' legal status, US court rules | ReutersA significant wave of attorneys has left the U.S. federal government since Donald Trump returned to office, fueling a major shift in the legal workforce. Between January and November 2025, over 8,500 licensed attorneys exited federal service, leading to a net loss of 6,524—one of the sharpest declines in decades. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was especially affected, with notable departures from its Civil Rights Division and Federal Programs Branch, and the closure of its Tax Division. Some resignations were linked to policy disagreements, while others were the result of force reductions or shifting departmental priorities.This exodus has dramatically reshaped the hiring market for large law firms. In 2025, top-grossing firms hired over 1,100 lawyers directly from government positions, more than doubling the rate seen in prior years. Recruiters report a flood of interest from government attorneys, many of whom began reaching out even before Trump's inauguration. However, while high-ranking officials and prosecutors remain in demand, lower-level attorneys without niche skills are facing a tougher private market.The overall federal workforce, not just lawyers, has contracted significantly under Trump's renewed efforts to reduce government size. The DOJ alone has seen a net loss of nearly 9,000 employees. While the number of federal lawyers remains close to 2017 levels, the recent surge in departures marks a striking reversal of long-standing hiring trends.Lawyers leaving US government drive workforce shift | ReutersMassachusetts Governor Maura Healey has proposed legislation that would block other states from deploying their National Guard troops into Massachusetts without her approval. The move comes in response to President Donald Trump's controversial use of the National Guard in 2025, when troops from various states were sent to cities like Chicago and Los Angeles without consent from local governments—breaking with long-standing norms regarding domestic military deployment.Several states already have similar laws, designed to prevent out-of-state Guard deployments unless coordinated through mutual agreement or in federally controlled situations. However, legal gray areas remain when the federal government asserts control over state troops. Last year, the Trump administration attempted to deploy federalized National Guard units from California and Texas to assist immigration enforcement in Portland, Oregon. That effort was met with lawsuits from state officials, who claimed no valid emergency justified the action; the troops were withdrawn before the legal battle concluded.Healey's bill aims to reinforce state sovereignty over such deployments and to guard against federal overreach in the absence of local consent. The National Guard is typically used across state lines only in emergency situations like natural disasters, and even then, usually with approval from affected states.Massachusetts bill aims to block National Guard deployment from other states | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week's closing theme is the Lacrymosa from Mozart's Requiem in D minor, a work shrouded in both mystery and mourning. Mozart began composing the Requiem in 1791, the final year of his life, and died before completing it—adding an eerie depth to a piece already suffused with sorrow and transcendence. The Lacrymosa movement in particular is a haunting meditation on grief, built around the Latin text “Lacrimosa dies illa” (“That tearful day”), which describes the final judgment and the weeping of the soul.The music swells with mourning, yet carries within it an unmistakable dignity—grief not as chaos, but as reckoning. Today, as we reflect on events that echo the legal and moral breakdowns of the past—and resound in the present—the Lacrymosa feels like a fitting elegy. It reminds us that great tragedy often begins under the guise of order, and that mourning is not only for the dead, but for the living systems and values that can perish when unchecked power takes root.Mozart, though apolitical and far removed from the 20th century, composed music that reaches across time to articulate the emotional weight of collective loss. The unfinished nature of the Requiem also mirrors the historical unfinished business of justice—how societies reckon with their past, or fail to. This piece, suspended between the sacred and the human, between hope and despair, offers a solemn moment of reflection as the week closes.Without further ado, the Lacrymosa from Mozart's Requiem in D 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: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq's supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti's waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn't comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He's got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn't struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users' cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone's property for one's own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs' attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students' pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district's pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS's policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students' gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can't Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss 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: Monkey SelfieOn January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater's unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto's behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump's immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE's actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | ReutersA Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state's congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state's 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia's 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers' bid for pro-Democratic voting map | ReutersTop lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | 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: Paris Peace AccordsOn January 27, 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords, effectively marking the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though primarily a geopolitical and military agreement, the Paris Peace Accords had significant legal dimensions. Negotiated between the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong (under the banner of the Provisional Revolutionary Government), the accords represented a complex international legal settlement aimed at restoring peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.The agreement included provisions for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and the recognition of South Vietnamese sovereignty. Legally, the accords posed a challenge to domestic and international law frameworks, particularly in the way the U.S. executive branch negotiated and signed the agreement without formal Congressional approval. This would later contribute to the debate around the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which sought to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces without legislative oversight.Though hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the accords failed to bring lasting peace. North Vietnam eventually overran the South in 1975, raising legal questions about treaty enforcement and the durability of international peace agreements brokered without strong enforcement mechanisms.A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota is weighing whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the state, which has come under intense scrutiny following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse. Local officials from Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue the federal crackdown involves unlawful tactics, including warrantless home raids and racial profiling, carried out by over 2,800 heavily armed agents—more than the total local police force. The Biden-appointed judge, Katherine Menendez, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case.The administration, defending the operation, dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. However, video evidence contradicts the official account of Pretti's death, showing he was unarmed and holding a phone when agents shot him, despite claims he posed a threat with a firearm. The incident has fueled widespread protests and demands for federal de-escalation from both state leaders and major Minnesota-based companies like Target and 3M.President Trump has sent border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, though it's unclear whether this signals an expansion or reassessment of federal actions. Trump says his administration is “reviewing everything” and that immigration agents will eventually withdraw. Tensions have also spilled into Washington, with Senate Democrats vowing to block DHS funding, risking a partial government shutdown. Meanwhile, even some Republicans are questioning the administration's approach.US judge to consider pause to Minnesota crackdown as Trump dispatches border czar | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from ending legal status for over 8,400 migrants from seven Latin American countries who had been allowed to live in the U.S. under family reunification parole programs. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the programs, which benefited migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.These programs, created or expanded under President Biden, allowed U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor relatives while they awaited visa approval. The Trump administration moved to end the programs, claiming they were inconsistent with current enforcement priorities and enabled people to bypass traditional immigration processes.Talwani found that the administration failed to justify its decision, noting the government neither provided evidence of fraud nor assessed the real-life consequences for affected migrants. Many had already sold homes or left jobs in their home countries. She ruled that DHS's policy shift lacked a reasoned explanation and was therefore arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.The ruling is part of a broader class action brought by immigrant rights advocates challenging Trump's rollback of temporary protections. Talwani had previously tried to block similar efforts affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants, but those earlier rulings were overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court.US judge blocks Trump administration's push to end legal status of 8,400 migrants | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a look at the Empire State's budget. New York Governor Kathy Hochul's proposed no-tax-hike budget may appear fiscally cautious, but critics (includin me) argue it lacks the stable, long-term revenue needed to support key social programs like universal childcare. While the state currently enjoys relative revenue stability, the budget relies on temporary fixes, such as decoupling from parts of the federal tax code to generate $1.6 billion, instead of pursuing more durable sources of funding.My critique centers on Hochul's refusal to raise the top marginal corporate tax rate—currently 7.25% for large companies—which is lower than neighboring states like New Jersey (11.5%) and Connecticut (8.25%). I suggest raising the rate to at least 8.5% and making the existing corporate tax surcharge permanent. I argue that companies benefiting from New York's infrastructure and market can afford modest increases, and are unlikely to relocate given regional and national tax landscapes.Without securing permanent funding, the state risks repeating a familiar pattern: expanding programs in good times and cutting them during downturns. I warn that relying on temporary revenue maneuvers delays tough decisions and increases the likelihood of painful tax hikes or service cuts when the economy falters. In short, now is the time to align recurring revenues with long-term commitments, while conditions are favorable. 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: Dyer Anti-Lynching BillOn January 26, 1922, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a landmark but ultimately thwarted attempt to make lynching a federal crime. Introduced by Missouri Republican Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer, the bill was drafted in response to the widespread and brutal practice of lynching—acts of racial terror largely aimed at Black Americans, often carried out with impunity. The measure sought to impose fines and prison terms on local officials who failed to protect individuals from mob violence, directly challenging the systemic neglect of justice in the Jim Crow South.Though the House approved the bill by a wide margin, it met a coordinated and racist blockade in the Senate, where Southern Democrats employed the filibuster to prevent a vote. The bill's failure underscored both the power of white supremacist interests in Congress and the federal government's unwillingness to confront racial violence. It would take a full century—100 years—for the U.S. to finally enact a federal anti-lynching law.That moment came in March 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was signed into law, making lynching a federal hate crime. The staggering gap between the Dyer Bill's passage in the House and the eventual success of anti-lynching legislation—exactly 100 years and two months later—is a sobering reminder of how recent, and how halting, legal progress on racial justice has been. From a historical perspective, 1922 is not ancient history; many living Americans had parents or grandparents who witnessed the Dyer Bill's failure.The Dyer Bill remains a powerful example of how legal change, even when urgent and necessary, can be obstructed for generations. It also reveals how the law, far from being a neutral instrument, often bends to the political will of those in power. The slow arc toward justice in this case wasn't just theoretical—it was measured in innocent lives lost and justice denied.The murder of Minnesota nurse Alex Pretti by ICE agents has sent shockwaves through Congress and thrown federal budget negotiations into chaos just days before a January 30 funding deadline. What had been a carefully arranged plan to pass remaining appropriations bills now faces collapse, raising the real possibility of a partial government shutdown. Senate Democrats, already uneasy about funding the Department of Homeland Security, have hardened their opposition in response to the killing and are demanding investigations and new limits on ICE. Several Democrats who previously helped avert a shutdown now say they will not support any bill that includes ICE funding under these circumstances.Even lawmakers known for deal‑making, including Sen. Patty Murray, have withdrawn support, arguing that federal agents cannot commit murder without accountability. Republicans warn that blocking DHS funding risks undermining national security, but cracks are appearing within their ranks as well. Sen. Bill Cassidy called the killing “disturbing” and urged a joint federal‑state investigation, a rare public break with the administration. Meanwhile, logistical hurdles—including winter storms and congressional recesses—are shrinking the window for compromise. With both parties dug in and tensions escalating nationwide, the shutdown threat has grown sharper by the day.Minnesota Shooting Inflames Tensions in Congress, Risks ShutdownMeta, TikTok, and YouTube are set to face trial this week in Los Angeles County over claims that their platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis by fostering social media addiction. The case centers on a 19-year-old plaintiff, K.G.M., who alleges she became addicted to the apps at a young age, leading to depression and suicidal thoughts. It marks the first time these major tech companies will have to defend their platforms in court, rather than in congressional hearings. The jury will be asked to determine whether the companies were negligent and whether their products were a substantial factor in harming K.G.M.'s mental health.This trial is seen as a bellwether for dozens of similar cases expected to follow. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel were both expected to testify, though Snap recently settled with the plaintiff. YouTube plans to argue that its platform is fundamentally different from other social media services, distancing itself from TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, these companies have been aggressively promoting parental control features and safety programs in schools and youth organizations to shift public perception.Despite these efforts, critics argue the tech giants are leveraging their influence—legal, financial, and cultural—to avoid accountability. Attorneys representing the companies have experience in other high-profile addiction-related litigation, including the opioid crisis and video game cases. As the trial unfolds, the question of corporate responsibility for digital harm to minors will be tested in court for the first time.Meta, TikTok, YouTube to stand trial on youth addiction claims | ReutersThe Supreme Court appears unlikely to grant President Trump's request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook but also seems disinclined to issue a sweeping ruling on the broader constitutional or statutory questions at play. Legal analysts suggest the justices are leaning toward a narrow, procedural decision—one that would preserve a lower court's injunction against Cook's removal while sending the case back to trial court for further fact-finding. This approach would allow the Court to sidestep defining what constitutes “cause” for firing a Fed governor or how far presidential removal powers extend, particularly in relation to the Federal Reserve's legal independence.The justices expressed concern about the rushed pace of the case and the thin evidentiary record, with Justice Alito questioning whether key documents were even part of the case file. Trump argues that Cook committed mortgage fraud, but Cook and her legal team contend the firing attempt is a pretext for punishing her resistance to his demands for aggressive rate cuts. Several justices highlighted the potential economic fallout of removing a Fed official, with economists warning of recession risks if the court acts hastily.This case underscores that the Court is never obligated to resolve constitutional issues in broad strokes—it may always choose a minimalist path that focuses on the facts before it. Legal scholars note that even if the Court rules for Cook, it could do so narrowly by emphasizing procedural due process rather than affirming a general principle of Fed independence. The outcome is expected by June but may arrive sooner.Supreme Court may leave big questions unresolved on Trump bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | 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 launched something new — and it's for anyone tired of hearing sloppy arguments pass unchallenged.LSAT Logic Applied is a new short-form podcast hosted by me, Andrew Leahey, the steady (?) voice at the helm of Minimum Competence. Twice a week, we'll take the tools used in LSAT Logical Reasoning — assumptions, flaws, causation, strengthen/weaken — and apply them to the real world: news stories, political talking points, and ad claims.You don't need to be prepping for the LSAT to follow along. The goal is to make better sense of the arguments that flood your feed and shape public opinion — and to see where they break.In the debut episode, included here just this once as an introduction to the show, we take on a recurring claim from Donald Trump: that tariffs made the United States the richest nation in the world. Fact checkers have pushed back on the economic accuracy, but for LSAT purposes, we're more interested in the structure of the argument than its fiscal bottom line.And structurally, there's a lot to talk about. Causation flaws, hidden assumptions, and post hoc reasoning — it's a logical mess with political consequences.Find it wherever you get your finely crafted podcasts. 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: League of Nations MeetsOn January 23, 1920, the League of Nations held its first official meeting, marking a major experiment in international law and collective governance. The League was created in the aftermath of World War I as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Its core mission was to prevent future wars through diplomacy, arbitration, and collective security. For the first time, nations committed themselves to resolving disputes through legal mechanisms rather than unilateral force. The League also helped develop early norms of international accountability and treaty enforcement. It established permanent institutions to oversee mandates, labor standards, and minority protections. Although the United States never joined, the League influenced how international law was discussed and practiced. Its failures, particularly its inability to prevent aggression in the 1930s, exposed the limits of voluntary compliance without enforcement power. Those weaknesses became lessons for later international institutions. Many of the League's structures and legal concepts were later incorporated into the United Nations. The League's first meeting thus represents a foundational moment in the modern law of international cooperation.U.S. President Donald Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit in Florida state court against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, alleging that the bank improperly closed his accounts for political reasons. Trump claims JPMorgan violated its own internal policies by singling him out as part of a broader political agenda. The bank denied the allegations, stating it does not close accounts based on political or religious views and that the lawsuit lacks merit. Trump also accused Dimon of orchestrating a “blacklist” intended to discourage other financial institutions from doing business with him, his family, and the Trump Organization. He said the account closures caused reputational harm and forced him to seek alternative banking relationships. JPMorgan countered that account closures are sometimes required to manage legal or regulatory risk. The lawsuit comes amid broader political scrutiny of banks over alleged “debanking” practices. Conservative critics have accused lenders of restricting services to certain individuals and industries. A recent report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that major banks limited services to some industries between 2020 and 2023, though it did not identify specific wrongdoing. Regulators have since moved away from using vague “reputational risk” standards in bank supervision.Trump sues JPMorgan, CEO Jamie Dimon for $5 billion over alleged debanking | ReutersFormer U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee that Donald Trump willfully violated the law in his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Smith testified that Trump was not seeking truthful information about election fraud claims but instead was searching for ways to block certification of the results. The hearing marked Smith's first extensive public testimony about the two criminal cases he brought against Trump, both of which were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024. Republicans on the committee accused Smith of political bias and argued his investigation improperly targeted Trump and his allies. They focused on Smith's use of subpoenas for phone records of Republican lawmakers, portraying the actions as overreach. Smith defended those measures as necessary to investigate potential obstruction of justice. He said Republican witnesses who contradicted Trump's fraud claims would have been central to the election interference case. Trump responded by renewing calls for Smith to be prosecuted and accusing him of harming innocent people. Democrats on the panel defended Smith as a career prosecutor guided by evidence rather than politics.Former US prosecutor Smith says Trump ‘willfully broke' laws in bid to keep power | ReutersA federal judge expressed skepticism about whether the Trump administration has the legal authority to build a $400 million ballroom at the White House without congressional approval. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon questioned the administration's justification for demolishing the historic East Wing and replacing it with a large new structure. The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues the project violates federal laws governing construction on parkland in Washington, D.C. The group contends that Congress must expressly authorize such construction and that required environmental reviews were bypassed or improperly handled. Judge Leon sharply rejected comparisons between the ballroom and past minor renovations, signaling concern about the scale of the project. He is considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would halt construction while the case proceeds. The administration maintains the ballroom is necessary for state functions and part of a long tradition of presidential renovations. Government lawyers also argue that stopping construction now would serve no public benefit, especially since above-ground work is months away. Leon said he expects to rule on the injunction request in the coming weeks.White House faces skeptical judge in lawsuit over Trump ballroom | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Édouard Lalo.This week's closing theme features music by Lalo, a composer who spent much of his career just outside the spotlight of 19th-century French music. Born in 1823, Lalo came to composition relatively late and struggled for recognition in a musical world dominated by opera and established conservatory figures. He is best remembered today for works that combine classical structure with vivid color and rhythmic vitality. The Concerto in F Major, Op. 20 reflects those strengths, balancing elegance with expressive intensity. The opening Andante – Allegro begins with a reflective, almost searching character before unfolding into a more energetic and assertive main section. Lalo uses the solo instrument to sing rather than dominate, emphasizing lyrical phrasing over virtuosic display. The movement's shifting moods showcase his gift for contrast and dramatic pacing. There is a clear sense of forward motion, but never at the expense of clarity. Lalo's orchestration remains transparent, allowing themes to breathe and develop naturally. The music feels poised between Romantic warmth and classical restraint. As a closing theme, it offers both momentum and reflection. It is a reminder of Lalo's understated influence and the enduring appeal of his finely crafted musical voice.Without further ado, Édouard Lalo's Concerto in F Major, Op. 20, the opening Andante, 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: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' 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: Nixon Aides ConvictedOn January 21, 1975, three of Richard Nixon's closest aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney General John Mitchell—were convicted for their roles in the Watergate cover-up. The charges? Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. These convictions weren't just about punishing political wrongdoing; they were the direct legal aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Nixon six months earlier. That decision famously held that executive privilege—long seen as a near-impenetrable shield—does not extend to cover-ups and criminal conduct. The message was as clear as it was historic: even the most powerful figures in government are not beyond the reach of the law.The Watergate trials became a masterclass in the tension between power and accountability. These weren't fringe operatives—they were the President's top men, brought down not by partisan maneuvering but by due process. In convicting them, the courts affirmed a fundamental principle: constitutional protections are not carte blanche for corruption. That principle has since been tested repeatedly, often invoked but rarely with the same clarity.While Nixon himself was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his aides faced real legal consequences. And in doing so, they served as a sobering example of what happens when loyalty to power eclipses loyalty to the law.On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—an unprecedented move that could reshape the legal boundaries of central bank independence. Trump is challenging a lower court ruling that barred him from removing Cook while her legal challenge continues. At issue is whether a president can dismiss a Fed governor without due process, despite the Federal Reserve Act's “for cause” removal standard, which lacks clear definition.Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed's board (by President Biden in 2022), argues Trump's push is politically motivated, tied to disagreements over monetary policy. Trump cited past mortgage fraud allegations—which Cook denies—as grounds for her removal, but a district court found those likely insufficient and in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay that ruling.The case has major implications: no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor, and the Court's decision could determine how insulated the central bank remains from political interference. It also arrives amid broader questions about the scope of presidential control over independent agencies—and a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which many see as part of the same pressure campaign.By way of brief background, a Federal Reserve governor is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the central banking authority of the United States. The Board is composed of seven governors, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve staggered 14-year terms. These governors play a critical role in shaping U.S. monetary policy, overseeing the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and regulating certain financial institutions. Their primary responsibilities include setting the discount rate, influencing the federal funds rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans), and voting on key decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the body that manages the nation's money supply and interest rate targets.Importantly, Fed governors are designed to be insulated from political pressure to preserve the central bank's independence. That's why they can only be removed by the president “for cause”—a vague legal standard that has rarely, if ever, been tested. This structural independence is meant to prevent short-term political interests from influencing decisions that have long-term economic consequences, such as controlling inflation, stabilizing employment, or responding to financial crises. While their work often operates behind the scenes, the policies they help shape impact virtually every corner of the U.S. economy—from mortgage rates to job growth to the value of the dollar.US Supreme Court considers Trump's bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersA court-appointed special master has recommended that women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer should be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that link in upcoming trials. Retired Judge Freda Wolfson found that the plaintiffs' experts used reliable methods and cited statistically significant studies connecting genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The recommendation—part of a sprawling litigation involving over 67,500 cases—moves the lawsuits closer to federal trial, possibly later this year.Wolfson also allowed J&J's experts to present rebuttal testimony, but excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as talc migration via inhalation or links to fragrance chemicals and heavy metals. J&J criticized the ruling and plans to challenge it, arguing that the scientific evidence wasn't rigorously vetted.The litigation has dragged on for years, complicated by failed bankruptcy attempts by J&J to shield itself from liability. While the company denies its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer, prior jury verdicts have yielded multi-billion-dollar awards for plaintiffs, though some have been overturned. The case could become a major bellwether for corporate liability and the legal standard for expert scientific evidence in mass torts.Experts can testify about suspected J&J talc products' cancer link, special master recommends | ReutersLindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned prosecutor and former personal attorney to the president, is leaving her post at the U.S. Justice Department after a federal judge sharply rebuked her for continuing to act as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond her legally allowed interim term. Appointed without Senate confirmation, Halligan's authority expired after 120 days, yet she continued using the title—prompting Judge David Novak to call her conduct a “charade” and warn of potential disciplinary action.Halligan had led politically charged investigations targeting Trump adversaries like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though those cases were dismissed due to questions over her legitimacy. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings, but the controversy has sparked internal tension, with Novak criticizing the DOJ's recent filings as inflammatory and unprofessional.Her departure follows Senate Democrats' refusal to advance her formal nomination, citing the “blue slip” tradition that allows home-state senators to block nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed Democrats for obstructing Halligan's tenure, while Trump allies hinted at retaliation if the court names a replacement. The episode underscores ongoing friction between the judiciary, the Justice Department, and Trump's efforts to assert political control over federal prosecutions.After judge's rebuke, Trump ally Halligan to leave US Justice Department | ReutersA Massachusetts judge has ruled that Kalshi, a New York-based prediction market platform, cannot offer sports betting services in the state without a proper gambling license. The decision comes after Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi, arguing that it was illegally offering unlicensed sports wagers to residents, including users as young as 18. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith agreed, stating that state oversight of sports betting protects public health and financial interests.Kalshi, which allows users to bet on outcomes of events like sports, politics, and the economy, claimed that its operations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), due to its status as a registered contract market. The judge rejected that argument, ruling that federal oversight of financial instruments does not override state authority to regulate gambling.Kalshi plans to appeal the injunction, which could be finalized following a hearing. This marks the first court-ordered halt of Kalshi's operations in a state, though it faces similar legal challenges elsewhere. The case underscores growing friction between emerging event-based financial markets and traditional gambling laws.Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, judge 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: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion's case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump's executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration's “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young's earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department's claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration's actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can't people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good's family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it's deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good's case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week's theme is Franz Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven's Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt's fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn't simply condense Beethoven's orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven's dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt's Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It's a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it's both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven's revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro con brio. 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