Podcasts about legalnews

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide 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: Nineteenth Amendment CertifiedOn this day in legal history, August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was formally certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, granting women the right to vote nationwide. The certification marked the culmination of a nearly century-long struggle led by suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and later Alice Paul and Ida B. Wells, who fought for political inclusion through protests, civil disobedience, and persistent lobbying. The amendment's ratification by Tennessee—by a single vote—on August 18, 1920, provided the necessary 36th state approval to satisfy constitutional requirements.The Nineteenth Amendment's language is deceptively simple: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex.” But its legal impact was profound, constitutionally guaranteeing the franchise to half the population that had long been excluded. The certification did not end all voting discrimination—many women of color, particularly Black and Native American women, continued to face racist barriers to the ballot—but it was a foundational legal step toward gender equality in civic life.August 26 is now recognized as Women's Equality Day, established by Congress in 1971, to honor the legal and political significance of the Nineteenth Amendment and to commemorate the broader fight for women's rights. The legal principle enshrined in the amendment echoes in later equality jurisprudence, forming part of the constitutional backdrop to cases involving gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.The Nineteenth Amendment also represented a rare moment when a constitutional change directly expanded democratic participation, in contrast to more procedural or structural amendments. It altered not just who could vote, but how lawmakers and courts would later consider the role of gender in public policy and civil rights. The amendment continues to serve as a legal and symbolic foundation for subsequent laws and cases advancing gender equity, including Title IX and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment.On August 26, the legal history of suffrage becomes not only a story of amendment certification, but of constitutional transformation through organized legal and political struggle.U.S. Senator Ron Wyden has called on Chief Justice John Roberts to initiate an independent investigation into the federal judiciary's cybersecurity practices, following a significant breach of the court system's electronic case management system. In a letter, Wyden urged Roberts to involve the National Academy of Sciences in reviewing both the recent and previous hacks—highlighting that foreign actors, possibly including Russia, exploited the same vulnerabilities in both incidents.Wyden criticized the system as outdated, insecure, and costly, noting this was the second major breach since 2020. He emphasized that sensitive data, including information on confidential informants and sealed case files, may have been compromised. The judiciary's handling of cybersecurity, Wyden argued, has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of institutions entrusted with highly sensitive information.The senator pointed out that despite years of warnings and expert recommendations, the judiciary has lagged in updating its technology. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder recently admitted in testimony that the case management system is obsolete and needs replacement. Wyden also noted that while executive branch agencies have been using multi-factor authentication since 2015, the judiciary will not implement it until the end of 2025.Wyden has long advocated for transparency and modernization in the court system, including efforts to make the PACER database free. His latest request underscores growing bipartisan concern over national security implications tied to the federal courts' digital infrastructure.US senator calls for independent review of federal judiciary cybersecurity | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with a provision in its recent spending bill that bars Medicaid funding from going to abortion providers in Maine. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lance Walker—a Trump appointee—rejected a request by Maine Family Planning to block the provision, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July. The organization argued the law unfairly targeted them and violated their constitutional rights, but the judge declined to intervene, emphasizing the law was a product of the democratic process.Walker acknowledged that the policy might be unwise but stressed it is not the judiciary's role to override legislative choices based on policy disagreements. Maine Family Planning, the state's largest reproductive healthcare provider, warned that the ruling could force clinic closures and reductions in care, impacting around 8,000 patients annually.The case is one of two major legal challenges to the law. A separate federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the same provision as it applies to Planned Parenthood nationwide, and that ruling is under appeal. The Maine case focused on how the law would impact two of the state's main abortion providers and argued it violated equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by singling them out.Judge Walker, however, found that Congress has the authority to direct federal funds in ways consistent with its policy goals, including discouraging abortion—a procedure that is no longer protected as a constitutional right following the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.Trump administration can withhold Medicaid funding from Maine abortion providers, judge rules | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has moved to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, alleging she made false statements on mortgage applications—an accusation she denies. The unprecedented move, announced via Truth Social, sent financial markets into a brief stir, with long-term Treasury yields rising and the dollar dipping, reflecting concerns over the Fed's independence. Cook, appointed by President Biden and confirmed in 2022, has vowed not to resign and plans legal action, arguing that Trump lacks authority to remove her without proper cause.Trump claims Cook's conduct shows “gross negligence” and undermines trust in the Fed. However, under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed “for cause,” a standard historically interpreted to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct while in office. Cook's alleged mortgage misstatements predate her time at the Fed, making the legal grounds for removal murky.This attempt follows months of Trump's public attacks on the Fed for keeping interest rates high. If successful, it would allow him to reshape the board with dovish policymakers more favorable to rate cuts. Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and legal scholars, denounced the move as a political power grab and a threat to central bank independence.The Department of Justice may investigate Cook following a criminal referral, but no charges have been filed. Legal experts suggest the case could test the Supreme Court's recent statements on limits to presidential power over independent agencies. Meanwhile, Cook has reiterated her commitment to her role and refuses to step down amid what she calls political bullying.Trump Moves to Fire Fed's Cook, Setting Up Historic Legal FightAnd in my column this week, a story out of Utah. A small town in Utah, Wellington, is facing public backlash after proposing a 225% property tax hike—a dramatic response to years of avoiding smaller, routine tax increases. This financial crisis wasn't caused by a single year of overspending but rather by elected officials deferring necessary tax adjustments since 2017, despite rising costs for services and infrastructure. While avoiding tax hikes may have seemed politically savvy, it left the town with a nearly $400,000 budget shortfall that now demands a painful correction.The Wellington situation illustrates a broader problem: local governments often delay modest increases to avoid political consequences, only to face greater fiscal challenges later. Holding tax rates flat may feel like good governance, but it allows infrastructure to decay and expenses to balloon. By the time officials act, the required adjustment feels extreme to residents who weren't prepared for it.The solution, according to my piece, lies in normalizing small, predictable tax increases. This would help cities keep pace with inflation and infrastructure needs, without shocking taxpayers. One of my proposed reforms is land value taxation, which taxes land rather than improvements on it—encouraging development without penalizing property upgrades and offering greater economic stability.To depoliticize the process, cities could establish independent, bipartisan bodies to manage long-term tax planning. This shift from reactive crisis management to proactive fiscal planning could help avoid sudden, disruptive tax spikes like Wellington's. The underlying message: the longer tax adjustments are postponed, the more painful and politically damaging they become.Utah Town's 225% Property Tax Spike Is Lesson on Fiscal Realism 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

In this podcast, Jeff talks about his trip to Italy and love of Italians — and notes the many similarities between Italians and Jews and one glaring difference. Italy was great but the constant content making of young people in Capri annoyed him. Only this dopey, lazy mentality could drive the success of Zorhan Mamdani, a Socialist Hamas supporter, in the NYC mayoral race.

This Day in Legal History: Organic Act Establishes the National Park ServiceOn August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act, formally establishing the National Park Service (NPS) as a federal bureau within the Department of the Interior. This act marked a foundational moment in U.S. environmental and administrative law, as it created a centralized agency responsible for protecting and managing the country's growing number of national parks and monuments. Prior to this, national parks were overseen in a disjointed manner by various federal departments, often with limited resources or clear guidance. The Organic Act provided legal authority for the NPS to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein,” while ensuring they remained “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”This statutory language introduced a lasting legal standard—the dual mandate of conservation and public enjoyment—that has guided U.S. park policy ever since. The law empowered the federal government to enforce regulations, manage visitor access, and develop infrastructure while preserving natural and cultural resources. Over time, this act laid the groundwork for the modern administrative state's role in environmental regulation. It also reflected an early recognition that public land could and should serve both ecological and civic functions.The NPS Organic Act helped inspire future legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It also fueled legal debates around resource extraction, tribal land claims, and federalism. With the stroke of Wilson's pen, the United States committed itself to a legal philosophy of stewardship, enshrining the idea that public lands are a shared national trust. This day in legal history commemorates the birth of a legal and cultural institution that continues to shape American land use and environmental governance.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom advised Intel Corp. in securing an $8.9 billion government investment deal, which includes granting the U.S. a 10% equity stake in the chipmaker. The agreement, announced by President Trump, comes months after Skadden and eight other major law firms pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services in coordination with the White House. These services support causes such as veterans' advocacy, fighting antisemitism, and promoting justice system fairness. The firms reportedly entered the arrangement, in part, to avoid being targeted by executive orders that had been used against competitors.Skadden's role reflects its ongoing alignment with the administration's industrial and legal policy efforts, particularly as Intel seeks revitalization. The Federal Circuit also recently ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly dismissed one of Intel's patent invalidity arguments against a competitor, bolstering Intel's broader legal position. Separately, Kirkland & Ellis, another participating firm, has been involved in U.S. trade negotiations with Japan and Korea, facilitated by Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. The president has indicated he may rely further on these firms for legal matters related to tariffs, coal, and defense of law enforcement. Skadden's leadership emphasized internally that the firm retains full autonomy in client and case decisions.Skadden Steers Intel in Deal With Trump to Boost ChipmakerKilmar Abrego, a 30-year-old migrant whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador had made national headlines, was detained again by U.S. immigration authorities in Baltimore just days after being released from criminal custody in Tennessee. His 2019 asylum protections had barred deportation to El Salvador due to threats from gangs, but he was nonetheless removed in March in what officials later admitted was an “administrative error.” After months in a harsh Salvadoran prison, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face criminal charges for transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty.Upon checking in with ICE in Baltimore, Abrego was arrested again and is now facing possible deportation—this time to Uganda, a country with no connection to him. U.S. officials have reportedly offered Costa Rica as a destination if he agrees to a guilty plea, but without that, Uganda remains the likely alternative, a move his legal team argues is unconstitutional and coercive. His lawyer described the tactic as the government using “Costa Rica as a carrot and Uganda as a stick.”Abrego has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent deportation without judicial review and is currently protected by a Maryland court order requiring 72-hour notice before any removal to a third country. His legal team is also seeking to dismiss the federal charges, alleging selective and retaliatory prosecution tied to his earlier challenge of the unlawful deportation. A Tennessee federal judge previously found him neither a flight risk nor a public threat, supporting his release. The case continues to spotlight the legal complexities and rights violations emerging under the Trump administration's immigration policies.Wrongly deported migrant Abrego again detained by US immigration officials | ReutersA U.S. federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from withholding federal funds from over 30 sanctuary cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and Baltimore. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge William Orrick, expands a previous injunction from April that protected 16 jurisdictions. These cities had challenged two executive orders signed by Trump earlier in the year, arguing they unlawfully threatened to strip funding unless local authorities cooperated with federal immigration enforcement.Sanctuary jurisdictions typically limit how much local police assist with federal civil immigration arrests. Judge Orrick ruled that the executive orders posed an unconstitutional, coercive threat by conditioning federal funding on compliance with federal immigration preferences. His new order extends protections to additional cities that recently joined the lawsuit. He emphasized that any further actions or executive orders pursuing the same goal are likewise blocked under his injunction.The Trump administration had already appealed the earlier ruling, and the White House has not commented on the latest expansion. Separately, California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing over Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles following protests related to federal immigration enforcement.Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from Los Angeles, other sanctuary cities | ReutersA recent legal dispute between Apple and medical device maker Masimo is testing the boundaries of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) authority in enforcing patent-related import bans. The case began when CBP seized five Apple Watches in Chicago due to an International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued after Masimo successfully argued that Apple's blood-oxygen sensor infringed its patents. However, CBP later approved Apple's software workaround—which shifts blood-oxygen processing to a paired iPhone—without notifying Masimo, prompting the company to sue.Masimo argues CBP overstepped its enforcement role by effectively ruling on a patent dispute without an adversarial process, thereby undermining the ITC's authority. The lawsuit claims the workaround still infringes under the "doctrine of equivalents," which treats minor design changes as infringing if they achieve substantially the same result. Legal experts note that CBP is not equipped to handle complex questions of indirect or contributory infringement, which could occur when a product only violates a patent when used in combination with another device.The case raises due process concerns, especially as CBP's later ruling was issued ex parte—without Masimo's input—despite an earlier inter partes process. Legal observers see this as part of a larger structural flaw in how CBP and the ITC coordinate enforcement of exclusion orders. The ITC has acknowledged the lawsuit and may intervene, signaling that the dispute could influence broader agency practices. If successful, Masimo could seek enforcement penalties from the ITC, potentially up to $100,000 per day. This litigation follows a rare legal path similar to a 2013 Microsoft case against CBP that ended in settlement.Apple Watch Import Ban Work-Around Suit Tests Customs' IP Role 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: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ActOn August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law, reshaping the American welfare system in ways that continue to spark debate. Billed as a way to "end welfare as we know it," the law imposed strict work requirements on recipients and introduced a five-year lifetime limit on federal benefits, regardless of economic conditions. The legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), transforming a federal entitlement into a state-administered block grant system.Supporters of the reform hailed it as a bipartisan success, encouraging employment and reducing long-term dependency. But critics argue that the law eroded the social safety net and punished the poor, particularly single mothers and children, by prioritizing ideological goals over economic realities. States were given broad discretion in how to allocate funds, leading to uneven access and accountability. Many used their new flexibility not to expand support systems but to restrict eligibility and reduce caseloads, often with little evidence of improved outcomes.The law also failed to account for structural barriers to employment—such as childcare shortages, low wages, and racial discrimination—leaving many without support when they failed to meet work requirements. Moreover, the block grant's fixed funding has not kept pace with inflation or need, effectively shrinking welfare over time. While welfare rolls dropped sharply in the years following the reform, poverty did not—suggesting that many were simply pushed out of the system rather than lifted out of hardship. The 1996 law codified a narrative of moral failing over structural inequality, framing poverty as a matter of personal irresponsibility rather than systemic dysfunction.A federal judge ordered an immediate halt to new construction at the controversial "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center in Florida's Everglades. The facility, championed by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, was barred from accepting new detainees and required to dismantle supporting infrastructure—including generators, waste systems, fencing, and lighting—within 60 days. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, sided with environmental groups who argued the project violated federal, state, and local environmental laws.The detention center, estimated to cost $450 million annually and house up to 5,000 detainees, had drawn backlash for its location in a fragile wetland ecosystem populated by endangered species. Environmental advocates and some local leaders had long criticized the plan, noting it conflicted with decades of political pledges to protect and restore the Everglades. The Department of Homeland Security had tapped FEMA funds to support the project, raising additional controversy over funding priorities.In her ruling, Judge Williams emphasized that the project ran counter to longstanding legislative commitments to environmental protection. Florida has already filed an appeal, but environmental groups hailed the decision as a critical victory. Despite mounting opposition, Trump dismissed ecological concerns and reaffirmed his intent to replicate the model nationally as part of his broader immigration crackdown.Judge orders halt to new construction at 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center | ReutersAlligator Alcatraz Expansion Blocked for Harm to Environment (1)California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pair of redistricting bills designed to redraw congressional districts in favor of Democrats—part of an aggressive political response to a newly passed gerrymandered map in Texas. Both states are now embroiled in legal and constitutional battles, as Republicans and Democrats seek to lock in partisan advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom also set a special statewide election for November 4, asking voters to approve the new map. If passed, it could flip up to five Republican-held House seats and secure four Democratic-leaning swing districts.California's strategy sidesteps its voter-created independent redistricting commission, which has been enshrined in the state constitution since 2010 to prevent political interference. Because of that, lawmakers are now required to get voter approval to implement their plan—creating a high-stakes ballot measure, Proposition 50. Republicans and good-government advocates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charles Munger Jr., have vowed to fight the plan in court and on the ballot. A pending GOP lawsuit argues the legislature violated the state's 30-day waiting period for new bills, pushing through the redistricting effort without proper transparency.In Texas, the Republican-controlled legislature approved a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, hoping to maintain a narrow House majority. Voting rights groups immediately challenged the plan, claiming it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially diluting Black and Latino voting power. The case will be heard by a federal three-judge panel in El Paso, with a likely fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Republicans, including Governor Greg Abbott, deny any racial bias and argue the map reflects demographic shifts and Republican gains among minority voters.This escalating redistricting clash highlights the legal vulnerability of U.S. voting systems when partisan manipulation goes unchecked. Though the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering remains justiciable under the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, California Democrats are relying on voter sentiment—and Trump's unpopularity in the state—to justify a temporary abandonment of anti-gerrymandering principles.Explainer: The legal battles over redistricting in Texas and California | ReutersNewsom Signs California Redistricting Plan to Counter Texas Republicans - The New York TimesA federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, President Trump's controversial appointee as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, had no legal authority to hold the office after her temporary term expired. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann found that the Trump administration violated federal law by firing Habba's court-selected successor, Desiree Grace, and then using a series of procedural maneuvers to reinstall Habba. These included appointing her as “special attorney,” then naming her first assistant U.S. attorney to invoke the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.Brann concluded that Habba was unlawfully performing the duties of U.S. Attorney as of July 1 and that her actions from that point forward “may be declared void.” The ruling blocks her from overseeing or participating in criminal cases, and it extends to prosecutors operating under her supervision. The judge criticized the administration's strategy as an attempt to bypass Senate confirmation entirely by exploiting loopholes in temporary appointment rules, warning that this interpretation could let the executive branch install preferred prosecutors indefinitely.The Trump-appointed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, vowed to appeal, and Brann stayed his ruling pending the outcome. Still, the decision casts a shadow over prosecutions under Habba's leadership, and some courts in New Jersey have already paused proceedings. Brann also rejected the idea that firing interim appointees before their terms expire could justify continual reappointments without oversight.Defense attorneys in the case that triggered the ruling argued that the executive branch cannot sidestep a process designed to check prosecutorial power through judicial or Senate involvement. Though the judge refused to throw out defendant Cesar Pina's indictment—since the investigation began before Habba's unlawful tenure—the ruling reinforces that prosecutorial authority must be rooted in lawful appointment.Alina Habba Blocked From Handling Cases in Rebuke to Trump (3)This week's closing theme is by Claude Debussy.This week's closing theme comes from Debussy, born on August 22, 1862—an apt choice as we mark the anniversary of his birth. Debussy was a revolutionary figure in Western music, often associated with Impressionism, though he rejected the label. He sought to break from the rigid structures of the Germanic tradition, instead favoring color, atmosphere, and suggestion over clear-cut form and resolution. His music evokes shifting light, fluid motion, and emotional ambiguity—more akin to poetry or painting than to classical architecture.One of his early works, Rêverie, composed in the 1890s, offers a glimpse into the world he would come to define. The title means “daydream,” and the piece unfolds with a gentle, unhurried lyricism that floats outside of time. Though simple in construction, it is harmonically rich and emotionally resonant—hinting at the innovations to come in Clair de Lune, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, and Pelléas et Mélisande.Rêverie was one of Debussy's first pieces to gain public attention, though he later dismissed it as “a piece for salon use.” Listeners have disagreed ever since. Its introspective tone and delicate touch make it a lasting favorite among pianists and audiences alike. It feels like a whisper—never urgent, never insistent, always inviting. In that sense, it's a fitting farewell for the week: contemplative, unresolved, and open to interpretation.Without further ado, Claude Debussy's Rêverie 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: ABA FormedOn August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession's honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA's mission today.Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.The American Bar Association's recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ's move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.On the other hand, the ABA's decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population's privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ's civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital FightsA recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer's name to a document does not create a privilege.”That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court's approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges ErodingA federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system's integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | ReutersElon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk's argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can't stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren't being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we're left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can't Conjure Developers 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: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Salem Witchcraft ExecutionsOn August 19, 1692, five individuals—George Burroughs, John Proctor, George Jacobs Sr., John Willard, and Martha Carrier—were executed by hanging in Salem, Massachusetts, after being convicted of witchcraft. These executions occurred during the height of the infamous Salem witch trials, a dark episode in colonial American history fueled by religious fervor, mass hysteria, and deeply flawed legal proceedings. George Burroughs, a former minister, recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows—a feat believed to be impossible for a witch—which unsettled some spectators but did not halt the execution. John Proctor, a well-respected farmer, had been openly critical of the trials and was likely targeted for his outspoken skepticism.Martha Carrier was labeled “the Queen of Hell” by her accusers, a title steeped in misogyny and fear. The trials heavily relied on spectral evidence—claims of visions and dreams—which would later be deemed inadmissible in more rational courts. Governor William Phips halted the trials just two months later, in part because of growing public backlash and the implausibility of the accusations.These executions mark one of the final mass hangings of the Salem witch trials, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 people and the imprisonment of many more. Legal scholars have since examined the trials as a case study in the dangers of due process violations, mass panic, and unchecked judicial power. In the centuries that followed, the state of Massachusetts gradually acknowledged the injustice, with the last of the condemned officially exonerated only in 2001. The Salem trials remain a cautionary tale in American legal history, illustrating how fear and ideology can warp legal institutions.The White House has been sending social media teams to accompany FBI agents during arrests in Washington, D.C., as part of President Donald Trump's recent federal takeover of the city's policing efforts. According to sources briefed on the situation, the teams are capturing footage to promote the administration's crackdown on crime, raising serious concerns among legal experts. The move is considered highly unusual and potentially problematic, as it blurs the lines between law enforcement and political messaging, potentially violating Justice Department norms meant to prevent political interference in criminal investigations.One recent example involved a professionally produced video of FBI agents arresting Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, which was posted to the White House's social media and has garnered millions of views. Legal experts warn that filming arrests—especially in non-public spaces—could infringe on suspects' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and complicate the legal proceedings by generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity.The White House has also reportedly embedded personnel within the FBI command post and is tracking arrest statistics, suggesting an unusually direct involvement in federal law enforcement operations. While the administration claims this is part of its transparency initiative, critics see it as political theater designed to favorably shape public perception. Experts argue that such tactics risk undermining public confidence in the FBI's independence and could erode the bureau's credibility.White House sending social media teams with FBI on some arrests in D.C., sources say | ReutersThe Trump administration appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director of the FBI, sharing the post with conservative media personality Dan Bongino. This newly created position signals a shift in leadership at the Bureau, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling Bailey an essential addition to the agency. Bailey, a war veteran and Missouri's attorney general since 2023, will resign his current role effective September 8.Bailey expressed gratitude for the appointment, emphasizing his commitment to supporting President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi's law enforcement agenda. Bondi, who welcomed Bailey's appointment, praised his legal and military background. Bailey had previously been mentioned as a potential pick for U.S. attorney general under Trump's second term but was not ultimately chosen.Bongino, now Bailey's co-deputy, recently made headlines for clashing with Bondi over the DOJ's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and had reportedly considered resigning. The appointment, first reported by Fox News Digital, has raised eyebrows given Bongino's media background and the political nature of the move.Missouri attorney general named as co-deputy director of FBI | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) is attempting to revise and soften a controversial proposal that would double the number of required hands-on learning credits for law students, following strong pushback from many law school deans. The updated plan, released August 15, would raise the experiential learning requirement from six to twelve credits but introduces greater flexibility and delays implementation to at least 2032.Key changes include allowing students to earn three of those credits in their first year—previously prohibited—and permitting partial credit for traditional courses that incorporate practical elements like simulated client work or drafting exercises. These adjustments aim to address concerns about feasibility, especially for part-time students or programs with limited resources.Despite these revisions, critics remain skeptical. Many deans argue that the ABA has not shown sufficient evidence that increased experiential credits would improve legal education outcomes, and they warn the rule could increase costs and overburden students and schools. Supporters, including clinical faculty, argue that more hands-on training is essential for preparing practice-ready attorneys and believe the financial concerns are overstated.Some, like Cornell's Gautam Hans, expressed cautious optimism about the changes, while others, like Northwestern's Daniel Rodriguez, say the revisions don't go far enough to address core issues, particularly the lack of data supporting the proposed changes.ABA seeks to salvage law school hands-on learning proposal amid pushback from deans | ReutersIn an exclusive at Bloomberg Law, an SEC whistleblower alleges Paul Weiss and Reed Smith helped conceal $500 million in biotech risk. Two top law firms are accused in a whistleblower complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of hiding a legal dispute that could have jeopardized a $500 million biotech merger. The complaint, obtained exclusively by Bloomberg Law, was filed by Joel Cohen—best known for co-writing Toy Story—who claims he and his wife were defrauded out of at least $38 million by Sofie Biosciences Inc.Cohen alleges Sofie and its lawyers concealed his legal threats from disclosures during the company's majority-stake sale to private equity firm Trilantic North America. Central to the dispute is Sofie's use of a $2.5 million appraisal from Kroll LLC to value a cancer-imaging facility acquired in 2019—an amount Cohen claims was intentionally low in order to reduce his and other noteholders' payout in Series B preferred shares.The whistleblower complaint accuses Paul Weiss partner Jeffrey Marell and Reed Smith partner Michael Sanders of knowingly excluding Cohen's legal demands from merger documents, possibly violating federal securities laws. Internal emails cited in the complaint show Sofie executives feared the deal would fall apart if Cohen's claims became public.Sofie and its legal team argue Cohen waived his rights through broad releases signed during the merger and that the appraisal complied with contractual terms. However, Cohen and his wife had assigned their claims to a separate LLC, which the whistleblower says was not covered by those waivers.Two related lawsuits filed in California claim that Reed Smith represented conflicting interests and helped structure the asset financing in a way that disadvantaged noteholders. The firm denies any wrongdoing and says it never represented Cohen or the other lenders. A court ruling is expected soon on whether Cohen can access documents related to the Kroll valuation.Paul Weiss, Reed Smith Accused of Coverup by SEC WhistleblowerIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about state sales tax kickback schemes. Louisiana's 2012 “procurement processing program” was originally promoted as a way to support research and development, but instead has funneled the vast majority of collected sales tax—over 90% in some years—back to consultants and out-of-state companies. The scheme works by enticing payment processing subsidiaries to reroute sales through Louisiana, allowing the state to collect taxes on transactions that didn't actually occur within its borders. These taxes were meant to support research institutions, but in practice, virtually none of the funds have reached them. In 2023 alone, $67 million of the $73 million collected was rebated, and 2022 figures were worse.This program reflects a broader issue across many states: public incentive deals are being handed out with little to no accountability. Unlike private contracts, where each party protects its own interests and can demand repayment when promises aren't kept, public deals often lack enforceable clawback provisions. Louisiana does include a limited recapture clause in its statute—but it only ensures proper paperwork, not fulfillment of public benefits.Other states like California have taken modest steps, such as requiring disclosure of such deals, but few have adopted strong clawback mechanisms. Until public incentive agreements require concrete, verifiable results to justify tax rebates—and include provisions to recover funds when promises fall through—they risk becoming little more than tax shelters for private interests.​​Louisiana's Tax-Share Problems Prove Clawbacks Must Be Standard 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: Nineteenth Amendment RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing women the right to vote and marking a major legal milestone in the struggle for gender equality. The amendment states simply: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged… on account of sex.” Its passage capped off more than 70 years of organized activism, dating back to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Alice Paul played pivotal roles in maintaining momentum across generations, despite fierce opposition.The road to ratification was grueling. Congress passed the amendment in 1919, but it still required approval from three-fourths of the states—36 at the time. Tennessee became the critical 36th state, narrowly approving the amendment in a dramatic vote where a 24-year-old legislator, Harry T. Burn, changed his vote after receiving a letter from his mother urging him to support suffrage. That moment tipped the scales and enshrined the right to vote for women nationwide.Before the amendment, several western states had already extended suffrage to women, but many others actively suppressed it. The legal recognition of women's voting rights through constitutional amendment removed any ambiguity and forced all states to comply. The Nineteenth Amendment not only transformed the electorate but also reshaped American democracy by recognizing women as full political participants.The Trump administration is accusing a federal judge in Boston of undermining the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to block the administration from firing staff in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun had issued an injunction requiring the reinstatement of employees let go in a mass layoff, despite the Supreme Court having recently paused a broader version of that order. The Justice Department has asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene, arguing that Joun's refusal to lift the narrower injunction contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling and undermines the rule of law.The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit challenging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's plan to lay off over 1,300 department employees, part of President Trump's broader goal of eliminating the department—something only Congress can authorize. The plaintiffs, including students and advocacy groups, focused specifically on the Office for Civil Rights, which was set to lose half its staff. They argue that lifting the injunction now would effectively reward the administration's ongoing failure to comply with the court's order, as the terminated employees have not yet been reinstated.Judge Joun, appointed by President Biden, criticized the Supreme Court's ruling as "unreasoned" and pointed to the administration's continued noncompliance. The 1st Circuit has asked the plaintiffs to respond promptly to the Justice Department's request, signaling an expedited review.Trump administration claims judge defied Supreme Court to bar Education Department firings | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is preparing for what may be his final speech at the annual Jackson Hole conference, facing a complicated economic picture that challenges his data-driven policy approach. In past years, Powell used the conference to pledge aggressive action against inflation and, later, to support the labor market. Now, with inflation still above target and signs of economic slowdown emerging, Powell must decide whether to prioritize price stability or job preservation.The Trump administration and many investors expect interest rate cuts at the Fed's September meeting, but Powell's messaging—how he frames future actions—may matter more than the decision itself. Internally, Fed officials are split: some want to move quickly to protect jobs, while others want to wait for clearer evidence that inflation won't rebound. Powell has previously styled himself after past Fed chairs like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, with Volcker's inflation-fighting resolve and Greenspan's forward-looking leniency both offering competing models.Recent economic data has sent mixed signals. Revised job growth numbers were lower than initially reported, supporting arguments for easing monetary policy, but inflation has edged up again. Trump's tariff policies add further uncertainty, though their economic impact has so far been less severe than feared. With the economy growing slowly and inflation still above the Fed's 2% target, Powell must decide whether to stay the course, cut rates cautiously, or begin a broader shift.Powell has used Jackson Hole to battle inflation and buoy jobs; he's now caught between both | ReutersNovo Nordisk's shares rose by up to 5% after receiving accelerated U.S. approval for its weight-loss drug Wegovy to treat MASH (metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis), a progressive liver disease that affects about 5% of U.S. adults. This marks the first GLP-1 drug approved for MASH and offers a significant, if temporary, advantage over competitor Eli Lilly, which is still in clinical trials for its own MASH-targeting drug, tirzepatide.The news was a welcome reversal for Novo, which recently lost over $70 billion in market value following a profit warning and leadership change. The company, once Europe's most valuable publicly traded firm due to Wegovy's success, has seen its share price drop sharply over the past year amid intensifying competition in the obesity drug market and the rise of compounded copycat drugs.Although Novo now holds a short-term lead in the liver disease market, analysts expect that exclusivity will be brief once Eli Lilly gains approval. Novo has also submitted applications in Europe and Japan, signaling its intention to secure broader global use for Wegovy beyond weight loss.Shares in Novo Nordisk rise after Wegovy gets US nod for liver disease treatment | ReutersNorton Rose's ambitious tech partnership with NMBL Technologies has ended in failure and mutual lawsuits, highlighting how difficult it is for Big Law firms to pivot from selling legal services to selling tech products. The firm's Chicago office, launched in 2022 as an “innovation hub,” aimed to introduce 150 clients to Proxy, a legal workflow tool developed by a new partner, Daniel Farris. But three years later, not a single sale was made. NMBL claims Norton Rose didn't uphold its end of the deal and stifled the rollout, while the firm says clients weren't interested and is seeking damages for the investment.The fallout underscores broader challenges law firms face as they increasingly invest in artificial intelligence and legal tech amid growing demand and rising budgets. Unlike traditional legal work, selling products requires different infrastructure and skills—such as dedicated sales teams—that most law firms lack. Despite producing marketing materials and training resources, NMBL alleges that very few Norton Rose lawyers engaged with the product and that the firm failed to meaningfully promote it.NMBL is seeking $15 million in damages, accusing the firm of using the deal merely to recruit talent, while Norton Rose wants $250,000, calling the product commercially nonviable. The firm also allegedly created a shell subsidiary, LX, to meet contract terms but never properly funded or activated it. This case illustrates the steep learning curve law firms face in transitioning to tech-based business models and the internal resistance that can derail innovation.Firm's Failed Tech Venture Foretells Big Law's AI Sales Struggle 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: Starve or SellOn August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer's expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux's vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed FilesUS taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | ReutersA federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department's arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial's final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president's immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | ReutersThe U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn't kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh's statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.Coleridge-Taylor's music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor's enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor's 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – 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: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | 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: East German Border SealedOn August 13, 1961, the East German government abruptly sealed the border between East and West Berlin, cutting off one of the last open crossings between the Eastern Bloc and the West. Overnight, streets were blocked, barbed wire unrolled, and armed guards posted, turning neighbors into strangers by force. For years after World War II, Berlin had been a divided city within a divided Germany, but its open border allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West. By 1961, East Germany's leadership, with Soviet backing, viewed the steady exodus as both an economic drain and a political embarrassment. The border closure was quickly followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall — initially a rudimentary barricade, later reinforced into a heavily guarded concrete barrier. Families were split, jobs lost, and daily life in the city transformed, as movement between the two halves became nearly impossible. West Berlin became an isolated enclave of democracy surrounded by a communist state, symbolizing Cold War tensions. The Wall also became a stage for daring escape attempts, some successful, others tragically fatal. Its legal underpinning rested on East Germany's assertion of sovereignty and border control, which the West rejected as illegitimate. International condemnation followed, but geopolitical realities left the Wall in place for nearly three decades. The border closure and Wall construction intensified the East–West standoff, influencing Cold War diplomacy, military posturing, and propaganda. The Wall finally fell on November 9, 1989, marking the beginning of German reunification. The events of August 13, 1961, remain a stark reminder of how governments can physically enforce political divisions.The American Bar Association has voted to eliminate its longstanding rule that reserved five Board of Governors seats specifically for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities — what can only be described as a stunning kowtowing to authoritarianism. Instead, those positions will now be open to anyone who can demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, regardless of personal demographic background. The change was approved by the ABA's House of Delegates during its annual meeting in Toronto, where members also considered, but rejected, proposals to shrink the size of both the House and the Board. Advocates for the shift argued that broadening eligibility could help the ABA sidestep potential lawsuits, while critics noted it follows years of political pressure from the Trump administration and conservative legal groups. That pressure has included threats to strip the ABA of its law school accreditation role and formal complaints alleging its diversity programs discriminate against non-minorities. The ABA has already paused its law school diversity accreditation requirement until at least 2026. Membership in the association has also sharply declined over the past decade, falling from nearly 400,000 in 2015 to about 227,000 in 2024, with leadership citing the elimination of free and low-cost memberships as one factor. Previously, eligibility for the diversity-designated seats was based strictly on identity, but the new rules rely on factors such as lived experience, involvement in relevant initiatives, and resilience in the face of obstacles. While the ABA did not cite political motives, the timing and surrounding context suggest a strategic retreat in the face of escalating ideological confrontation.ABA ends diversity requirements for governing board seats | ReutersAT&T has reached a settlement with Headwater Research, ending a wireless patent infringement lawsuit just days before trial in a Texas federal court. Headwater, founded by scientist Gregory Raleigh, claimed AT&T used its patented technology for reducing data usage and easing network congestion without permission, allegedly copying the inventions after a 2009 meeting with company employees. The suit, filed in 2023, targeted AT&T's cellular networks and devices, with the telecom giant denying infringement and challenging the patents' validity. The case was set for trial Thursday, but both parties asked the court to pause proceedings due to the settlement. Headwater has had recent success in the same court, winning $279 million from Samsung and $175 million from Verizon in separate wireless technology disputes earlier this year. Terms of the AT&T settlement were not disclosed.AT&T settles US wireless patent case before trial | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore part of the $584 million in federal grants it recently froze for UCLA, finding the move violated a prior court injunction. Judge Rita Lin, ruling from San Francisco, said the National Science Foundation's suspension of funds breached her June order that blocked the termination of multiple University of California grants. The decision affects more than a third of the frozen amount, which had been halted amid President Trump's threats to cut funding to universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The administration has accused UCLA and other schools of allowing antisemitism during demonstrations, while protesters — including some Jewish groups — argue the government is conflating criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza with bigotry. The funding freeze comes as UCLA faces a proposed $1 billion settlement demand from the administration, a figure the university says would be financially devastating. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have labeled the offer as extortion, raising broader concerns about free speech and academic freedom. UCLA has already settled a separate antisemitism lawsuit for over $6 million and faces litigation tied to a 2024 mob attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The administration has reached settlements with other universities, including Columbia and Brown, while talks with Harvard continue.Judge orders Trump administration to restore part of UCLA's suspended funding | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld Arkansas's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, reversing a lower court's ruling that found the law unconstitutional. In an 8-2 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent approval of a similar Tennessee law, concluding that Arkansas's restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority also rejected claims that the ban infringes on parents' constitutional rights to seek medical treatment for their children, finding no historical precedent for such a right when the state deems the care inappropriate. The dissent argued the law lacked evidence to support its stated goal of protecting children and would harm transgender youth and their families. Arkansas passed the first statewide ban of its kind in 2021, overriding a veto from then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it has since been followed by similar laws in 25 states. The ruling represents a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and comes amid a wave of federal and state litigation over such policies.US appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care | 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: Japanese PM Convicted of Accepting BribesOn August 12, 1983, former Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei was convicted of accepting bribes from the American defense contractor Lockheed Corporation in one of Japan's most notorious political scandals. Tanaka, who served as prime minister from 1972 to 1974, was found guilty of taking approximately $2 million in illicit payments to facilitate the purchase of Lockheed aircraft by Japanese airlines. The scandal, part of a broader international investigation into Lockheed's bribery of foreign officials, became emblematic of the deep entanglement between corporate influence and political decision-making in postwar Japan.Tanaka's conviction marked the culmination of years of investigation, during which he retained significant political clout despite resigning as prime minister in 1974 amid allegations. His sentence included four years in prison and a fine, though he remained free on appeal for years thereafter. The Lockheed scandal not only damaged public trust in Japan's political establishment but also exposed vulnerabilities in the country's campaign finance and lobbying regulations.Tanaka's political machine, known as the “Etsuzankai,” was legendary for its ability to secure votes and wield influence through personal networks, favors, and targeted public works projects. Even after his resignation and conviction, Tanaka's allies dominated Japanese politics for much of the 1980s, demonstrating the persistence of patronage systems despite corruption scandals.Internationally, the case was a warning shot to defense contractors and multinational corporations about the legal risks of engaging in covert payments to secure contracts. For Japan, it became a touchstone in ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the need for stronger anti-corruption laws. Tanaka, often called “the paragon of postwar corruption,” remained a polarizing figure—admired by some for his populist economic policies and condemned by others for his abuse of public office.Federal prosecutors in Maryland have expanded their case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein, alleging he used his law firm's client trust account in 2021 to hide nearly $1 million from the IRS before purchasing a home. The revised indictment, filed August 8, claims Goldstein moved personal funds into his firm's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account to avoid tax collection. It also adds details about earlier allegations that he misrepresented the source of $968,000 seized from him in 2018—telling a border officer it was gambling winnings, then later claiming to the IRS it was a loan, including from a foreign gambler.Prosecutors further allege Goldstein misled a litigation funder while seeking help with tax debts and a mortgage, and tried to dissuade a former firm manager from cooperating with investigators. The updated charges correct some dates, moving one alleged diversion of client fees from 2021 to 2020, and expand the time frame for certain tax evasion counts to include conduct through March 2021. These changes follow Goldstein's motion to dismiss several counts as time-barred.While the client trust account allegation is new, no new counts were added. Goldstein still faces four counts of tax evasion, ten counts of assisting false tax returns, five counts of willful failure to pay taxes, and three counts of false statements on loan applications. He is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in United States v. Goldstein.SCOTUSblog's Goldstein Facing New Allegations in Criminal CaseThe American Bar Association's (ABA) policymaking body has passed a resolution opposing government actions that punish lawyers, firms, or organizations for representing clients or causes the government dislikes. This move comes amid heightened tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has restricted DOJ attorneys from attending ABA events, reduced the ABA's role in vetting judicial nominees, and threatened its authority to accredit law schools.The resolution warns that the rule of law is endangered if lawyers or judges face retaliation for doing their jobs. It also denounces threats to impeach judges solely for their rulings. The ABA has an active lawsuit against the administration, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against major law firms—claims the DOJ has asked a court to dismiss, arguing the ABA lacks standing and evidence of harm.Trump has issued executive orders targeting firms over past clients and hires, prompting some firms to agree to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to avoid further action. Others have sued successfully to block orders that revoked security clearances and restricted access to government work. The ABA contends these tactics have discouraged public interest legal work and harmed the ability of vulnerable clients to secure representation.American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown | ReutersTaft, Stettinius & Hollister announced it will merge with Atlanta-based Morris, Manning & Martin on Dec. 31, creating a firm with more than 1,200 lawyers across 25 offices and projected revenues exceeding $1 billion. The deal will add 100 attorneys to Taft's roster and give the Cincinnati-founded firm its first Atlanta office. Taft's chair Robert Hicks described the move as part of a broader plan to become a “national middle-market super firm” and said the firm is eyeing future expansions into New York and Texas.Partners at both firms unanimously approved the merger. Morris Manning's managing partner, Simon Malko, emphasized that the combination was not driven by necessity, despite the firm recently losing lawyers to Reed Smith and Bradley Arant. Merger talks began in February, with both firms anticipating strong performance in 2025.This marks Taft's third merger of the year, following combinations with Denver-based Sherman & Howard in January and Florida litigation firm Mrachek Law in June. It also continues a wave of large law firm consolidations, including recent deals involving McDermott Will & Emery, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Kramer Levin, Herbert Smith Freehills, Shearman & Sterling, and Allen & Overy.Latest US legal industry merger to create $1 billion firm | ReutersThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Donald Trump's recently enacted tax and spending law will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. The July law, passed without Democratic support, extends earlier Trump-era tax cuts, adds temporary tax breaks, and increases certain spending, but offsets the cost by imposing new restrictions and eligibility requirements on Medicaid. Democrats criticized the measure as benefiting the wealthy at the expense of low-income households.According to the CBO, the poorest Americans will see annual incomes drop by about $1,200 due to combined tax and benefit changes, while middle-income households will gain $800 to $1,200, and the wealthiest will see increases exceeding $13,000. The agency noted these changes will disproportionately reduce resources for households at the lower end of the income spectrum while boosting those in the middle and upper tiers.10 million Americans will go uninsured due to Trump tax and spend law, CBO estimates | ReutersAnd in my column this week: Washington, DC is close to approving a $4.4 billion public financing package to bring the Washington Commanders back to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, framing it as an investment in affordable housing and equity. Critics argue it's a familiar tax-subsidized stadium deal that guarantees a new stadium by 2030 but leaves housing delivery vague and far in the future. The legislation secures decades of tax breaks, infrastructure bonds, and zoning exemptions for the team, yet affordable housing commitments are relegated to non-binding promises in a separate term sheet. Official projections suggest 6,000 housing units, with 30% affordable, but without enforceable deadlines, construction could lag until 2040—or never materialize.Job creation claims are similarly underwhelming: 16,000 positions are projected, but 14,000 are temporary construction jobs, leaving only about 2,000 permanent roles for the $4.4 billion investment. The land involved—180 acres of public property—could instead be used for community-led development, housing trusts, or co-ops with built-in affordability requirements. Critics note that the public is bearing all the legal obligations while promised benefits remain aspirational. If the housing isn't built, the Commanders would only face paying rent on undeveloped parcels, a minimal penalty. Alternative proposals include redirecting funds currently used to pay off Nationals Park bonds toward a housing bond program, which could deliver thousands of affordable units sooner. Advocates argue any stadium approval should include firm, enforceable housing delivery benchmarks and penalties for missed deadlines to ensure public benefits aren't indefinitely deferred.One notable legal element here is the absence of binding contractual obligations for affordable housing delivery—a gap that leaves the city with limited legal recourse if the housing targets are missed, despite billions in guaranteed public subsidies. This matters because it highlights how legislative structure can predetermine the enforceability—or lack thereof—of development promises.Commanders Stadium Deal's Housing and Job Promises Are a Facade 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: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | 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: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – 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: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | 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: Voting Rights ActOn August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and civil rights history. The legislation aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, especially in the southern states where such practices were deeply entrenched. The Act outlawed literacy tests and other mechanisms that had been used for decades to suppress the Black vote. It also authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.The law came in the wake of sustained activism, including the Selma to Montgomery marches and the brutal attack on peaceful demonstrators in what became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Johnson, in a powerful address to Congress, tied the moral imperative of the Act to the nation's founding ideals, declaring that “it is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote.” Within months of the Act's passage, hundreds of thousands of Black Americans were registered to vote, reshaping political representation across the South.The Voting Rights Act has since been amended and interpreted by courts, with key provisions reauthorized multiple times. However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight, significantly weakening the Act's enforcement mechanism. This decision opened the door to new state laws that voting rights advocates argue disproportionately affect minority voters.Legal scholars and civil rights lawyers continue to debate the future of the Act, with efforts ongoing to restore and update its protections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains one of the most consequential civil rights statutes in American history, transforming the legal landscape of democratic participation.Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for aiding Jeffrey Epstein in sexually abusing minors, is opposing the U.S. government's attempt to release transcripts from the grand jury that indicted her. Her legal team argues that public disclosure could irreparably damage her reputation and complicate a potential retrial, especially as she seeks to overturn her conviction at the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim the grand jury testimony is incomplete and lacks the scrutiny of cross-examination. The Department of Justice, citing public interest, requested permission from two Manhattan judges to release the material, prompting responses from Maxwell's lawyers, Epstein's estate, and alleged victims.President Donald Trump recently pushed for the release of the documents, seeking to address criticism from both allies and opponents about the handling of the Epstein-Maxwell case. Trump's Justice Department acknowledged that a rumored Epstein client list does not exist, which disappointed some supporters. While Epstein's estate took no stance on the release, attorneys for victims advocated for limited disclosure that protects victims' identities and allows pre-review by their legal teams.The Justice Department said the grand jury testimony largely aligned with evidence presented at Maxwell's trial. Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court argues that a 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and prosecutors should have protected her as well. Additionally, she recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about potential information she may have on other individuals.Epstein partner Maxwell opposes release of her grand jury materials | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from diverting over $4 billion away from a disaster prevention grant program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, grants a preliminary injunction to stop the government from redirecting funds intended to help state and local governments prepare for natural disasters like floods and hurricanes.The lawsuit was filed by 20 predominantly Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts and Washington, arguing that FEMA lacked authority to cancel or repurpose the BRIC program without congressional consent. The judge agreed that the states faced potential irreparable harm and shouldn't have to wait until the funding was fully withdrawn to challenge the decision.FEMA, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, had labeled the program as wasteful and ineffective earlier this year, announcing plans to shut it down. However, Judge Stearns noted that such a move violated proper legal procedures and posed serious risks to public safety and infrastructure.The BRIC program was created in 2018 during Trump's first term and has since approved around $4.5 billion in funding for nearly 2,000 infrastructure projects, largely in coastal areas. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the ruling affirms the importance of federal support for community disaster preparedness.US judge blocks Trump administration from diverting disaster prevention grants | ReutersTesla and CEO Elon Musk are facing a proposed class action lawsuit from shareholders who allege they committed securities fraud by misrepresenting the safety and readiness of Tesla's self-driving technology, including the Robotaxi. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Austin, Texas, follows a June test of the Robotaxi that revealed troubling behavior such as sudden braking, wrong-lane driving, and unsafe passenger drop-offs. After the test, Tesla's stock dropped 6.1%, erasing roughly $68 billion in market value.Shareholders argue that Musk and Tesla overstated the capabilities of their autonomous driving systems, misleading investors about the company's prospects. Key statements under scrutiny include Musk's April 2025 assertion that Tesla was "laser-focused" on launching the Robotaxi in Austin and Tesla's public claims of a scalable and safe autonomous approach. The lawsuit covers shareholders who bought stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025.Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja and former CFO Zachary Kirkhorn are also named as defendants. The complaint arrives as Tesla confronts lagging demand for its existing EV models and public concern over Musk's leadership and political views. Meanwhile, Tesla is appealing a recent Florida jury verdict holding it partially liable for a 2019 crash involving its self-driving software, which resulted in a $243 million damages award.Tesla, Elon Musk sued by shareholders over Robotaxi claims | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced a sweeping rollback of government-funded mRNA vaccine projects, cutting 22 initiatives worth $500 million. The move affects high-profile organizations including Moderna, Emory University, and Tiba Biotech. Kennedy justified the decision by claiming mRNA vaccines have not effectively protected against upper respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 and influenza. He also indicated a policy pivot toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms” that could maintain effectiveness despite viral mutations.This decision marks a dramatic shift in federal vaccine policy under the Trump administration and reflects Kennedy's long-standing skepticism toward vaccine safety. It follows previous actions he's taken, including firing 17 CDC vaccine advisers, removing COVID-19 vaccines from recommended use in healthy children and pregnant women, and reducing contracts with Moderna and Novavax. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which oversees U.S. pandemic preparedness, is now being redirected to focus on vaccine platforms with what the agency calls “stronger safety records” and more transparency.Critically, the rationale for these cuts leans heavily on Kennedy's controversial views, which conflict with the broader scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of mRNA technology. While it is reasonable to assess long-term vaccine strategy, completely abandoning mRNA platforms — particularly after their role in containing the COVID-19 pandemic — appears ideologically driven rather than data-based. Public health experts warn this may jeopardize future preparedness and undercut decades of scientific advancement, especially when the HHS has not publicly released the data allegedly supporting its decision.RFK Jr. Pulls Back on mRNA Projects as Vaccine Shakeup Continues 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: Reagan Fires Air Traffic ControllersOn August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan followed through on a warning to striking air traffic controllers by initiating the dismissal of over 11,000 of them. The controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), had walked off the job on August 3, demanding better wages, shorter hours, and improved working conditions. Reagan responded firmly, citing the fact that federal employees had taken an oath not to strike against the government. In a speech delivered the same day the strike began, he gave them 48 hours to return to work or face termination. When the deadline passed without compliance, the administration acted swiftly, beginning the process of mass firings. The move marked a defining moment in Reagan's presidency and had lasting effects on labor relations in the public sector. It also effectively broke PATCO as a union, with the government decertifying it shortly afterward. The decision underscored Reagan's commitment to law and order as well as his hardline stance against labor disruptions that affected national infrastructure. It sent a powerful signal to other unions and shifted the political climate around collective bargaining. The Federal Aviation Administration eventually rebuilt the workforce, but full staffing and operations took years to stabilize.A federal judge in San Diego has ruled that Duane Morris LLP must face most of the claims in a proposed class action accusing the firm of misclassifying certain employees as "partners" to shift tax and benefit costs onto them while denying them a share of the firm's profits. The case was brought by Meagan Garland, a former employment law partner at the firm, who alleges that Duane Morris used the "non-equity partner" designation to avoid paying payroll taxes and employee benefits like health and disability insurance.Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo rejected Duane Morris' motion to dismiss the majority of Garland's claims, though she allowed two dismissed claims to be amended. Garland also claims the firm engaged in discriminatory pay practices, alleging that women and minorities were paid less than white male colleagues. Duane Morris, founded in Philadelphia, denies any wrongdoing and contends that Garland was properly treated as a partner under the law. The lawsuit spotlights the broader issue of how law firms use partnership titles that may not reflect actual ownership or control.US law firm Duane Morris must face lawsuit over alleged partner pay scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, is reportedly convening a grand jury to investigate claims that officials from former President Barack Obama's administration fabricated intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation stems from assertions by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has alleged the intelligence community was politically weaponized. The DOJ recently formed a strike force to assess those claims, though it has not commented on the reported grand jury.President Donald Trump has amplified Gabbard's accusations, calling them vindication and reiterating his unsubstantiated claim that Obama committed treason by trying to link him to Russia. Gabbard, who declassified certain documents, claimed they reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” to sabotage Trump's campaign. Democrats have dismissed the allegations as false and politically driven.The 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and help Trump, primarily through cyber operations and disinformation. However, it found no conclusive evidence that the efforts changed the outcome. Russia has consistently denied any involvement.US DOJ to open grand jury to investigate Obama officials, source says | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Devin Nunes—former congressman and current CEO of Trump Media—against NBCUniversal over statements made by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show. The case centered on Maddow's 2021 claim that Nunes failed to turn over a package he received from Ukrainian legislator Andrii Derkach, who was sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent. Nunes argued that Maddow knowingly misrepresented the situation, since the package had, in fact, been given to the FBI.U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel ruled that Nunes failed to show Maddow acted with "actual malice," a legal requirement for defamation claims brought by public figures. Castel said there was no evidence Maddow knew her statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. He also found no indication that her political bias drove her to fabricate the claim. Maddow and her team had relied on other sources, and weren't even named as defendants in the suit—NBCUniversal was.The judge noted that Nunes couldn't prove Maddow was aware of a Politico article stating the FBI had the package. Derkach, the sender of the package, was later charged in an unrelated money laundering case and remains at large. The lawsuit's dismissal underscores the high bar public figures face when attempting to prove defamation.Trump Media CEO Nunes loses defamation lawsuit over Rachel Maddow show | ReutersA federal judge in Mississippi, Henry Wingate, has declined to explain a prior ruling that was riddled with serious factual and procedural errors in a high-profile civil rights case. The original July 20 decision, which temporarily blocked Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools and universities, mistakenly named incorrect parties, included inaccurate facts, and cited material that may not exist. Wingate replaced the flawed ruling with a corrected version but refused the state's request for clarification or to preserve the original decision in the public record.In a brief order, Wingate acknowledged the mistakes as “clerical errors” and asserted that judges have the authority to correct such issues without further explanation. The state's attorneys haven't publicly suggested a cause for the mistakes, which surfaced the same week a judge in New Jersey retracted a separate opinion after it was found to contain fake citations likely generated by artificial intelligence. That incident reportedly involved a temporary assistant using AI without adequate oversight.The Mississippi ruling's errors have raised broader concerns about accuracy and accountability in the judiciary, especially amid increasing scrutiny over AI use in legal writing. Legal ethics experts, including Indiana University professor Charles Geyh, noted the scale of the errors in both cases as unusually severe for federal courts.US judge says he won't explain error-ridden ruling in Mississippi civil rights case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS needs to modernize its understanding of what qualifies as a charitable purpose, especially in the context of open-source software. I focus on the agency's recent decision to deny 501(c)(3) status to an open-source organization, even though its software was free, publicly licensed, and designed for use by nonprofits, schools, and public entities. The problem, I suggest, is that the IRS still relies on outdated frameworks that fail to see intangible digital goods—like code—as valid public benefits, even when they clearly serve civic or educational ends.I draw comparisons to other nonphysical outputs the IRS has deemed charitable, such as legal covenants used in historic preservation or freely distributed textbooks. If those are eligible, why not code? The IRS's reasoning—that open accessibility negates exclusivity of charitable purpose—misunderstands how open-source licensing already limits private benefit. Licenses like the GNU GPL are specifically structured to ensure that the software remains free and publicly useful, even when reused or modified.I also point out that open-source tools power major government systems, including those of the IRS itself. Recognizing code as a charitable output wouldn't require creating new law—just applying existing standards more consistently. If architectural plans or legal documents can qualify, so should code that educates, streamlines public services, or saves nonprofits from buying costly proprietary tools.Open-Source Coders Who Benefit the Public Should Be Tax-Exempt 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

In this episode, Jeff returns after a few weeks off — and explains how one press conference in Chicago spiraled into a fabricated international incident with the Mexican government. Representing Ovidio Guzmán (El Chapo's son) became less about legal defense and more about being scapegoated by terrified politicians. In the end, free speech and the truth will always shine through. And the Mexican people?  Jeff notes that his respect for them has grown exponentially.Also covered: Hamas' newest PR strategy — letting Gaza starve while hoarding food in tunnels and filming propaganda videos of emaciated kids (whose fat parents are somehow not starving). The lies grow louder, the propaganda slicker, and yet Western liberal and far-right Jew haters just can't stop blaming Israel and taking it out on Jews. All while the next mayor of NYC will be a Hamas cheerleader who wants government-owned supermarkets and to arrest the Prime Minster of Israel. The downward spiral that began in 2008 nears completion.And finally, Jeff goes full collector mode: a breakdown of the baseball card National Show in Chicago. Too many rooms, too many scammers, but one glorious vintage Orioles cabinet card makes the entire hellscape worth it.

This Day in Legal History: Switzerland's Federal CharterOn August 1, 1291, the seeds of what would become modern Switzerland were planted with the signing of the Federal Charter, or Bundesbrief, by the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. This wasn't the dramatic formation of a nation-state as we think of it today—it was three rural Alpine communities making a legal pact for mutual defense and cooperation in the face of growing Habsburg pressure. The document itself is barely over 300 words long, written in Latin, and mostly focuses on conflict resolution and how not to stab each other in the back (literally and figuratively). But make no mistake, this was a radical assertion of local legal autonomy during a time when imperial rule was the norm.The Federal Charter stands as an early example of federalism—three small political entities entering into a horizontal, legally binding agreement without ceding total sovereignty to a monarch or emperor. In legal terms, it was more covenant than constitution, but its emphasis on mutual aid, lawful arbitration, and collective security laid the groundwork for Switzerland's famously decentralized structure. The signatories agreed to resist foreign judges and unlawful acts of violence, a precursor to ideas we now enshrine in due process and the rule of law.This wasn't a flashy revolution. There were no declarations of independence or fiery speeches. Just some pragmatic legalese scratched onto parchment that said, in effect, “Let's have each other's backs, settle disputes fairly, and not get bossed around by some distant duke.” Over time, this unassuming agreement evolved into the Swiss model of federalism and neutrality that still defines the nation today. It's not just legal history—it's a reminder that even minimalist governance structures can have maximal staying power.Federal judges who issued rulings against Donald Trump's policies have come forward with disturbing accounts of harassment, threats, and violent intimidation. At a “Speak Up For Justice” event, five judges—including Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell—described receiving death threats, being targets of “swatting” incidents, and even having pizzas delivered to their homes under the name of a murdered judge's son. McConnell, who blocked a major White House funding freeze earlier this year, disclosed that he received six credible death threats and over 400 hostile voicemails. One threat involved someone searching the dark web for his address, saying they wanted "Smith & Wesson to pay him a visit."Judge John Coughenour, who ruled against Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, recounted a terrifying police raid on his home due to a false murder report. The FBI later alerted him to a bomb threat. Despite being appointed by Republican President Reagan, Coughenour criticized political attacks on the judiciary as damaging to democratic institutions. The White House called the threats unacceptable and emphasized the importance of judicial safety. On the same day as the event, the Senate confirmed Trump's nominee Gadyaces Serralta to lead the U.S. Marshals Service, who pledged to prioritize judge protection.By mid-June, 408 threats against 297 judges had been logged in the fiscal year. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered in 2020, praised the speaking judges for breaking their silence in defense of judicial independence.US judges recount death threats, 'swatting' after rulings against Trump | ReutersAccording to exclusive reporting done by Reuters, the U.S. State Department plans to allocate up to $7.85 million to support deportation operations in Costa Rica, marking a significant expansion of American-backed regional immigration enforcement. The funds, redirected from an economic development account, will be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate with Costa Rican authorities to carry out deportations of migrants—especially those transiting through the country en route to the U.S.This arrangement resembles a 2024 Biden-era agreement with Panama, where the U.S. financed detention and deportation of migrants moving northward. The new Costa Rica program is framed as a capacity-building effort that will fund deportation logistics and training on asylum screening. Still, critics warn it could deny vulnerable populations fair access to asylum protections.The plan follows a Trump administration request earlier in the year for Costa Rica to accept 200 migrants from Africa, Asia, and Europe previously detained in the U.S. Many of them remain in Costa Rica, raising questions about long-term outcomes. Details on when deportations will begin or the final destination countries remain unclear.Officials have also acknowledged that some migrants are now traveling south through Costa Rica, fleeing northward crackdowns and the end of Biden's humanitarian parole options. The agreement does not require a direct connection between the migrant and the country to which they may be deported, a detail likely to fuel ongoing human rights concerns.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been visiting countries throughout Latin America to explore similar arrangements, suggesting this may be part of a broader regional deportation strategy under Trump's immigration policy.Exclusive: US plans to fund deportations from Costa Rica, document shows | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit closely examined whether President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign imports. The legal challenge, brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses, centers on Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law typically used for financial sanctions—to justify tariffs against countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. Judges on the panel, many of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, expressed skepticism, with one noting the law “doesn't even say tariffs.”This is the first major appellate test of Trump's tariff authority, and it comes just as a deadline approaches for new tariff hikes. Trump has used tariffs aggressively in his second term as both an economic and geopolitical tool, citing trade imbalances and foreign inaction on fentanyl as justifications. The challengers argue that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs, not the president.While the court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place during the litigation, a final ruling could have major implications. A previous lower court decision had already questioned whether IEEPA allows for tariffs tied to longstanding trade deficits. Meanwhile, tariffs have become a significant revenue source, generating over $100 billion so far this fiscal year—money the administration may need after passing new tax cuts.The case won't affect tariffs enacted under other legal provisions, like those on steel and aluminum. Trump's legal team argues that restricting presidential tariff power would hinder trade negotiations. The president has recently secured agreements with the EU and Japan, and is currently working on deals with Mexico and others to avoid further tariff hikes.US appeals court scrutinizes Trump's use of tariffs as trade deadline looms | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is a bright and confident slice of Mozart at his most charming: the Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, Allegro. Written in 1784 during a period of remarkable productivity, this concerto is one of the six that Mozart composed that year alone—each one displaying a different facet of his evolving style. No. 19 stands out for its buoyancy and rhythmic vitality; it's elegant without being self-serious, energetic but never frantic.Mozart, still in his late twenties, was performing regularly in Vienna, dazzling audiences with works that showcased both his pianistic skill and his compositional inventiveness. This piece was likely written for one of his own concerts, tailored to suit both his technical flair and his subtle wit. The Allegro opens with a playful orchestral theme, crisp and sunny, which soon gives way to the piano's entrance—graceful, witty, and full of character.There's a conversational quality to the movement: the orchestra tosses out ideas, the piano responds, elaborates, jokes, and dances. But beneath its lightheartedness lies Mozart's usual sophistication: unexpected harmonic turns, rhythmic displacements, and crisp motivic development keep the listener alert. The movement doesn't strive for drama or tragedy—it's pure Mozartian joy, rendered in tight musical logic and unfailing charm.As a closer, it offers an ideal farewell note: upbeat, clean, and full of clarity. You leave the room a little taller, a little lighter, like the music has tidied your thoughts and restored your sense of order. Mozart's No. 19 may not be the flashiest of his concertos, but it radiates something rarer: calm confidence, musical humor, and the sense that everything—at least for a few minutes—is exactly where it should be.Without further ado, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, the Allegro. 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: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | 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: Medicare and Medicaid Signed into BeingOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The signing took place at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman—an early advocate for national health insurance—present and symbolically receiving the first Medicare card. Medicare was designed to provide hospital and medical insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Medicaid, created alongside Medicare, offered healthcare assistance to low-income individuals and families.At the time, nearly half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance. The passage of Medicare was a landmark achievement of Johnson's Great Society initiative and built on decades of political struggle over healthcare reform. The legislation amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and was strongly opposed by many in the medical establishment and conservative politicians who labeled it as “socialized medicine.” Nevertheless, the program gained rapid popularity and provided immediate relief to millions.Administered by the federal government, Medicare initially had two parts: Part A, covering hospital insurance, and Part B, covering outpatient and physician services. It has since evolved to include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and options for private plans (Medicare Advantage). The law reshaped the American healthcare landscape and established the principle that access to healthcare for seniors was a federal responsibility.The U.S. Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and senior Justice Department official, to a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a narrow 50-49 vote. Bove faced unified Democratic opposition and criticism from over 900 former DOJ employees, who claimed he undermined the department's integrity. His nomination prompted a Democratic walkout during the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote and drew sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.Despite controversy, Republicans praised Bove's background as a federal terrorism prosecutor and his legal work defending Trump in several criminal cases. His confirmation shifts the appellate court's balance back in favor of Republican appointees. Critics cited Bove's alleged directives that defied judicial authority and political interference in a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Bove denied wrongdoing in both instances. His confirmation is part of Trump's renewed effort in his second term to reshape the judiciary, following over 230 appointments in his first term. Trump has also nominated another close adviser, Jennifer Mascott, to the same court.Trump lawyer Bove confirmed to US appeals court, overcoming Democratic opposition | ReutersBove Confirmed to Appeals Court After Whistleblowers Emerge (1)A White House crypto task force established by President Trump is set to release a highly anticipated report outlining the administration's policy goals for the digital asset sector. The report, expected Wednesday, will address tokenization, market structure legislation, and a regulatory framework for blockchain-based financial products. Created by executive order shortly after Trump took office in January, the group is led by Bo Hines and includes top officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.The document is expected to support expanded use of tokenization, which converts traditional assets like stocks and real estate into blockchain-based tokens. The report may call on the SEC to create a framework enabling firms like Coinbase to offer tokenized securities, though specific language remains under wraps. It will also outline the White House's preferences for crypto legislation currently advancing in Congress, including follow-up to the recently passed stablecoin law.Trump has made pro-crypto policies a centerpiece of his administration, reversing many of the enforcement actions taken under President Biden, such as lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance. While the industry sees the report as a roadmap for mainstream integration, concerns remain about conflicts of interest, particularly given Trump's financial ties to crypto ventures and meme coins. The administration has denied any ethical violations.White House set to unveil closely watched crypto policy report | ReutersThe Trump administration has formally requested the release of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, citing public interest and mounting pressure over the government's handling of the sex trafficking cases. Prosecutors filed late-night motions with U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer, arguing that the sealed testimony should now be disclosed, though the judges had previously asked for stronger legal justification. Grand jury records are typically secret, with limited exceptions for disclosure.Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing after the Justice Department reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no list of elite clients—a stance that frustrated some Trump supporters who suspect a cover-up. Epstein died in 2019 before his trial; Maxwell, convicted in 2021, is serving a 20-year sentence and has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.In a related effort, a Florida judge recently denied a separate request to release grand jury records from earlier state investigations into Epstein, ruling they did not meet legal exceptions. Even if the federal judges allow the current transcripts to be unsealed, the documents may not reveal new information, since much of the testimony was covered during Maxwell's trial. The transcripts also wouldn't encompass the full scope of investigative material held by the government.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, recently met with Maxwell for two days, reportedly seeking any names or evidence she could provide about others potentially involved. Neither Blanche nor Maxwell's attorney has commented in detail on those meetings.Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts | ReutersA Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $42 million to Paul Lovell, who developed mesothelioma after decades of using the company's talc products. Lovell and his wife sued in 2021, claiming the talc contained asbestos that he unknowingly inhaled, and accused J&J of failing to warn consumers despite knowing the risks. The jury awarded damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs.J&J denied any wrongdoing, calling the verdict “junk science” and saying its products are asbestos-free and safe, with plans to appeal the decision. The company ended U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020. This case adds to a string of multi-million-dollar verdicts against J&J in talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits, although some have been overturned on appeal.J&J is facing over 63,000 active lawsuits, and possibly up to 100,000 claims in total, most alleging ovarian cancer from talc use. The company's attempts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy have failed in court three times, including a $10 billion settlement proposal rejected in March. The Lovell case is part of ongoing litigation that continues to test J&J's legal strategy and product safety claims.Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $42M after jury finds talc caused man's cancer | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst & Former U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia) on the Russia Hoax Bombshell, Manipulated DC Crime Stats, Trump's Call for Schiff to Be Jailed, & More Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, July 21, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Elie Honig, senior legal analyst at CNN, New York Magazine columnist, former state and federal prosecutor and author of Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With it (Harper, 2023) offers legal analysis of how the DOJ is functioning during President Trump's second term, plus the latest news on Trump's controversial nomination of Emil Bove to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals and more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsored by Ro! Go to RO DOT CO SLASH RUSHHOUR for your free insurance check.

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