Podcasts about legalnews

Capitol Police are investigating an American flag with a swastika on it that was hanging in a Republican staffer's cubicle during a teleconference.A federal judge threatened sanctions against a lawyer who is representing January 6th rioters.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its latest attempt to gut what's left of the Voting Rights Act.  Plus, a couple of prosecutors who initially refused to bring charges against NYAG Letitia James were fired from the DOJ. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor's justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration's approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston's order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration's use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump's Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year's admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he's never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year's surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year's high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn't requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it's unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump's claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump's troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,' Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it's no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway's approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn't anti-EV or anti-climate policy—it's a sign that the original policy worked.Norway Shows How To End EV Subsidies Without Killing The Market 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: Clayton Antitrust Act PassedOn October 15, 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at strengthening U.S. antitrust law and curbing anti-competitive business practices. The Act was designed to build upon the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which had proven inadequate in addressing certain forms of corporate behavior that undermined market fairness. Unlike the Sherman Act, which broadly prohibited monopolistic conduct, the Clayton Act identified specific practices as illegal when they substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly.The law targeted interlocking directorates—situations where the same individuals served on the boards of competing companies—recognizing such arrangements as fertile ground for collusion. It also outlawed price discrimination that lessened competition, exclusive dealing contracts that restricted a buyer's ability to purchase from competitors, and mergers or acquisitions that threatened market competition. Another critical provision banned tying agreements, where the sale of one product was conditioned on the purchase of another, potentially unrelated, product.The Clayton Act was notable for providing more detailed guidance to businesses and regulators, reducing ambiguity that had plagued the enforcement of the Sherman Act. It also allowed for both government and private parties to seek injunctive relief and recover damages, increasing the avenues for challenging anti-competitive behavior. Importantly, labor unions and agricultural organizations were exempted from the Act's provisions, a significant shift from previous antitrust enforcement that had often targeted labor as a “combination in restraint of trade.”This legislative move reflected the progressive era's push to check corporate power and protect consumers and smaller businesses from monopolistic abuses. The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed just weeks earlier, worked in tandem with the Clayton Act to provide an institutional mechanism—the FTC—for enforcement. Together, these laws marked a turning point in the federal government's role in regulating the economy and ensuring competitive markets.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, a dispute that could undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a key provision prohibiting electoral practices that dilute minority voting power, even without direct evidence of racist intent. The controversy centers on Louisiana's post-2020 redistricting, initially producing a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising about a third of the state's population. A federal judge sided with Black voters who challenged the map, prompting lawmakers to draw a new version adding a second Black-majority district.That revision sparked a separate lawsuit from white voters who claimed the new map unfairly diminished their voting influence. A three-judge panel agreed, ruling the map relied too heavily on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state, which had previously defended the redrawn map, has now reversed course and is urging the justices to bar race-conscious districting entirely.This marks the second time the Court will hear arguments in the case this year, after sidestepping a decision in June. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court could issue a ruling that weakens Section 2, building on a 2013 decision that nullified another major part of the Voting Rights Act. However, a 2023 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh side with liberals in upholding Section 2 in an Alabama case. The outcome could impact congressional control, with Democrats warning that as many as 19 districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is curtailed.By way of brief background, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Originally passed in 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows voters to challenge laws that either deny the right to vote outright (“vote deprivation”) or weaken the effectiveness of their vote (“vote dilution”), even if no discriminatory intent can be proven. Courts reviewing Section 2 claims consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections and elect candidates of their choice. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs must show that minority voters are numerous and politically unified enough to elect a representative, and that white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat them. The Supreme Court has clarified over time that states aren't required to maximize minority districts, but race-based line drawing must strike a balance between avoiding racial discrimination and complying with equal protection principles. As other parts of the Voting Rights Act have been weakened, Section 2 has taken on even greater importance in protecting minority voting rights.US Supreme Court to hear case that takes aim at Voting Rights Act | ReutersElon Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package heads to the Delaware Supreme Court today, marking the final stage of a high-stakes corporate legal battle. A lower court struck down the record-setting pay plan in January 2024, ruling that Tesla's board was not sufficiently independent and that shareholders lacked vital information when they approved the deal in 2018. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery found the award unfair and applied strict legal scrutiny, igniting criticism from business leaders who argue Delaware courts are increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs.In response to the ruling, some companies—including Tesla—relocated their legal incorporation from Delaware to states like Texas and Nevada, where corporate governance laws are more lenient. This exodus, dubbed “Dexit,” prompted Delaware lawmakers to revise the state's corporate statutes in an attempt to retain business charters.Musk's legal team contends that McCormick misapplied the law and ignored evidence that Tesla shareholders were fully informed when they approved the deal. They argue the board's decision should have been reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. Despite the setback, Musk remains in line to receive billions under a replacement compensation plan approved in August, aimed at retaining him as Tesla shifts focus to robotics and autonomous technology.Tesla's board also proposed a $1 trillion future compensation framework, underscoring confidence in Musk's leadership, even as the company faces slowing EV demand and stiff competition from China. The Delaware justices will also weigh whether Tesla must pay $345 million in legal fees to the shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The Court typically takes months to issue a decision.Musk's legal fight over $56 billion payday from Tesla enters final stage | ReutersAustralia's High Court upheld the government's decision to deny far-right U.S. commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite social discord. Owens had applied for a visa to conduct a speaking tour in late 2024, but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected the request, referencing her history of controversial remarks—including Holocaust denial and Islamophobic statements. Owens challenged the decision, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication in Australia's Constitution. The court unanimously disagreed, emphasizing that this freedom is not an absolute personal right and that the Migration Act's restrictions served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding public order.The judges found that Owens' record of inflammatory commentary—touching on issues such as race, religion, gender, and public health—posed a significant risk of social division. The ruling also noted that denying her visa was consistent with protecting Australia's national interest and social cohesion. As a result, Owens was ordered to pay the government's legal costs.Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration defied a prior court order by reintroducing nearly identical immigration-related conditions for states to receive FEMA emergency preparedness grants. Judge William Smith, based in Rhode Island, had previously struck down the original grant conditions, which required state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. After his ruling, the Department of Homeland Security issued new grant documents with the same conditions, adding a clause that they would only take effect if the ruling was overturned. Smith rejected this workaround, stating that it was not a good faith attempt at compliance but a coercive tactic to pressure states into supporting federal immigration efforts.He ordered the administration to remove the conditions by the following week, emphasizing that states should not be forced to choose between upholding their policies and losing critical disaster funding. The judge characterized the move as an unlawful effort to bully states, not a legitimate policy revision. DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. The case is one of several legal challenges brought by Democratic-led states aimed at halting parts of Trump's immigration agenda through the courts.Trump administration flouted court order on FEMA grant funding, US judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. 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 points out the ridiculousness of the belief that President Trump has brought peace to the Middle East with the ceasefire agreement he got Israel and Hamas to sign. There is a mountain of evidence which makes clear that this ceasefire is simply a lull until the next war. In the meantime, the leftists/terrorists are making massive inroads into America and our failure to cut off the head of the terror snake will be our country's greatest failure in the not so distant future.In other news, Bruce Cutler has passed, at one point the most famous lawyer in the world. Bruce also was the lawyer who had a large part in getting Jeff to drop Pre-med in college and go to law school. In this podcast, Jeff recounts some very funny Bruce stories from years past. RIP Bruce.

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs' appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas's stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel's involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius's espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel's role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative' FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court's temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration's claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump's policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump's policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration's actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region's courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you're getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | 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: Spiro Agnew ResignsOn October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned from office after pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to a charge of federal income tax evasion. This marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting vice president resigned due to criminal charges. Agnew, who had been under investigation for bribery, extortion, and tax fraud from his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland, struck a deal with federal prosecutors to avoid jail time.Agnew's resignation came amid the broader constitutional crisis surrounding the Nixon administration, which was already under intense scrutiny due to the unfolding Watergate scandal. While Agnew denied the bribery allegations, he admitted he failed to report $29,500 in income received in 1967. As part of the plea agreement, he was fined $10,000 and placed on three years' probation, but avoided prison.His departure triggered the use of the 25th Amendment, specifically Section 2, which allows the president to nominate a new vice president when a vacancy occurs. President Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford, then House Minority Leader, who was confirmed by both chambers of Congress. Less than a year later, Nixon himself would resign, and Ford would ascend to the presidency—making him the only U.S. president never elected to the office of president or vice president.New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on October 9, 2025, for allegedly providing false information on a mortgage application. A federal grand jury in Virginia charged her with bank fraud and making a false statement to a lending institution, accusing her of falsely claiming she would use a property in Norfolk, Virginia, as a secondary residence. The indictment alleges that by misrepresenting her intent, James secured a lower interest rate, saving around $19,000. She denies wrongdoing and called the charges a politically motivated attack by the Trump administration, which she has clashed with repeatedly.The case follows a recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and ongoing investigations into other Trump critics, including Senator Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Critics, including James' attorney Abbe Lowell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, claim Trump is using the Justice Department for political retaliation. The case was brought by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a recent Trump appointee, reportedly without involvement from career prosecutors. James is expected to appear in court on October 24.The legal battle comes amid ongoing litigation between James and Trump, most notably a civil fraud case that initially led to a $454 million penalty against Trump, later overturned on appeal. James' team plans to fight the charges vigorously, suggesting her misstatements were not intentional.Letitia James, NY attorney general and Trump foe, indicted for mortgage fraud | ReutersA federal judge in Chicago has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, citing concerns that the move could escalate tensions rather than ease them. U.S. District Judge April Perry questioned the federal government's justification for sending troops to manage what it described as unrest around an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. The state had sued the Trump administration, arguing the deployment was unnecessary and politically motivated. Perry noted that federal officers' own actions had sparked the protests and warned that additional troops would “add fuel to the fire.” Her injunction will remain in place until at least October 23.This ruling follows a similar block in Portland, Oregon, though a federal appeals court in San Francisco now seems poised to overturn that decision, possibly clearing the way for future deployments. The Trump administration has defended the use of troops, claiming it's necessary to protect federal property, while Democratic leaders in affected states accuse the president of misrepresenting peaceful protests as violent uprisings.Governor JB Pritzker called the court's ruling a win for the rule of law, arguing there's no rebellion requiring a military response in Illinois. The White House, meanwhile, pledged to appeal the decision, with Trump reiterating plans to expand troop deployments to other cities, including Chicago and Memphis. Critics argue this strategy stretches the limits of presidential authority and raises legal concerns over the military's role in domestic law enforcement.US judge blocks Trump's deployment of National Guard in Illinois | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Mascott, a conservative legal scholar and Trump ally, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 50-47 vote, further shifting the court to the right. Her confirmation drew criticism from Democrats, particularly from Delaware senators, who objected to her lack of ties to the state traditionally associated with the vacant seat. Her only known Delaware connection is a beach house, prompting concerns about broken precedent and political loyalty.Mascott, who has clerked for Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, was on leave from her faculty position at Catholic University while working in the White House Counsel's Office. Senate Republicans praised her conservative legal background and past testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In contrast, Democrats criticized her nomination as partisan, with Senator Chuck Schumer labeling her a “sycophant” to Trump.This appointment, along with the recent confirmation of Emil Bove—a former Trump DOJ official and personal attorney—gives Republican appointees a majority on the 3rd Circuit, which hears appeals from Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.Democrats also voiced frustration over the elimination of the “blue slip” tradition, which once allowed home-state senators to block appellate nominees. Republicans ended that practice during Trump's first term, enabling confirmations like Mascott's over local opposition. On the same day, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced another Trump nominee, Rebecca Taibleson, despite objections from her home-state senator.US Senate confirms Trump nominee Mascott to federal appeals court | ReutersA Republican-controlled Senate committee approved two of President Donald Trump's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) but delayed action on a third, leaving the agency without the quorum needed to issue decisions. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted 12-11 to advance James Murphy, a retired NLRB lawyer, to the board and Crystal Carey, a labor attorney, as general counsel. However, a planned vote on Scott Mayer, Boeing's chief labor counsel, was pulled after he clashed with Senator Josh Hawley during his confirmation hearing.The NLRB has been unable to function fully since Trump's firing of Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January and the expiration of another Republican member's term. Wilcox is challenging her dismissal in court, and the Supreme Court has allowed her removal to stand pending resolution. Without at least three board members, the NLRB cannot issue rulings, stalling hundreds of cases — including many involving union elections.Trump's nominees would give Republicans control of the board for the first time since 2021. Democrats expressed concern over the independence of the nominees, noting the precedent of Wilcox's dismissal and questioning whether the new appointees could remain neutral. Both Murphy and Mayer insisted they would apply the law impartially, regardless of political pressure.Mayer faced particular scrutiny over a current strike involving Boeing workers in Missouri. Hawley criticized Boeing's executive compensation amid labor disputes, while Mayer declined to comment on the situation, citing his pending nomination. The HELP Committee also approved other Trump nominees for roles within the Department of Labor.US Senate panel approves two Trump NLRB nominees, tables a third | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi.This week's closing theme features a composer whose name is nearly synonymous with Italian opera — Giuseppe Verdi, born on or around October 10, 1813, in the small village of Le Roncole, then part of the Napoleonic French Empire. Best known for grand operas like La Traviata, Aida, and Rigoletto, Verdi's music defined the emotional and political voice of 19th-century Italy. Though his legacy rests almost entirely on the opera stage, Verdi briefly stepped into the world of chamber music with a single, striking contribution: his String Quartet in E minor, composed in 1873.He wrote it during a production delay of Aida in Naples, saying modestly it was “just a trifle” — but the work is anything but. The first movement, Allegro vivace, opens with an energetic, tightly woven interplay among the instruments, showcasing Verdi's grasp of counterpoint and formal structure, likely influenced by his admiration for German composers like Beethoven. There's a dramatic drive that feels operatic, yet the themes unfold with the clarity and discipline of a seasoned instrumentalist.It's the only surviving chamber piece Verdi completed, and it stands as a fascinating outlier in his body of work — more intimate, abstract, and inward-looking than his vocal dramas. The movement balances lyrical passages with bursts of rhythmic vitality, hinting that even without voices, Verdi could make instruments sing. As we mark the week of his birth, this selection offers a rare glimpse into the quieter, more introspective corners of a composer usually associated with sweeping arias and rousing choruses. 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: Martial Law Post-Great Chicago FireOn October 9, 1871, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire, the city's mayor, Roswell B. Mason, declared a form of martial law by handing control of the city to U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan. Though no formal martial law order was issued, Sheridan exercised sweeping authority over Chicago, including the deployment of troops and armed patrols to maintain order, protect property, and enforce curfews. The fire had devastated the city, destroying thousands of buildings and leaving over 100,000 residents homeless. Amid fears of looting and social collapse, civic leaders turned to the military rather than civil institutions to reestablish control.This decision represents a critical episode in the uneasy balance between civil liberties and emergency powers. There was no legal precedent or formal legislative act granting the mayor authority to transfer governance to a military figure, raising significant constitutional concerns. The use of military force to police civilians, absent explicit legal authorization, blurred lines between civilian and military jurisdiction. While contemporary accounts often depict Sheridan's leadership as effective, his presence underscored a mistrust in the city's own law enforcement and judicial institutions.No court review or legislative inquiry ever addressed the legality of this transfer of power, setting a troubling precedent for extrajudicial emergency actions. It also reinforced the broader 19th-century trend of informal martial law declarations, especially during moments of urban unrest or disaster. Chicago's experience in 1871 reflects how crises can be used to justify the suspension of normal legal processes, often without public accountability. This ad hoc militarization of city governance, though temporary, highlighted the fragility of civil authority in moments of panic—and how quickly constitutional norms can be cast aside.Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The indictment alleges he misled lawmakers in 2020 about authorizing an FBI employee to leak information related to an unspecified investigation—believed to concern Hillary Clinton. The case was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience, recently installed as U.S. attorney after her predecessor was removed for refusing to pursue Trump's political adversaries.The charges are seen as politically motivated, coming after Trump publicly pressured the Justice Department to act against Comey and others. Career attorneys reportedly opposed the indictment due to a lack of evidence, and prosecutors from outside the district were brought in to proceed with the case. The move has drawn sharp criticism, including from over 1,000 former DOJ officials across party lines who labeled it an attack on the rule of law.Trump has long threatened to imprison rivals, but this is the first grand jury indictment against one of them.Ex-FBI chief Comey pleads not guilty to charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersA Florida man has been arrested for allegedly setting the Pacific Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a January blaze that killed 12 people, destroyed roughly 6,000 structures, and caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Federal investigators from the ATF, LAPD, and LAFD concluded the fire was deliberately started near a hiking trail in a state park overlooking the Palisades. The suspect faces three federal charges and will be extradited to California. Because the fire was ruled intentional and led to multiple deaths, prosecutors could pursue life imprisonment or the federal death penalty under President Trump's 2025 executive order directing harsher penalties for severe crimes.Man arrested as suspect in setting California's deadly Palisades Fire, official says | ReutersPresident Trump called for the arrest of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats, as his administration prepared to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago over their opposition. Neither official faces criminal allegations, but both have criticized Trump's immigration policies and his use of federal troops in Democratic-led cities. Trump accused them of failing to protect ICE officers after Johnson declared Chicago an “ICE Free Zone.” Pritzker denounced Trump's remarks as authoritarian. Meanwhile, hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have gathered outside Chicago ahead of deployment, despite state lawsuits seeking to block the move. The president has also threatened to invoke federal powers to override court orders limiting troop deployments, part of a broader pattern of using federal authority against political opponents.Trump calls for jailing Democratic leaders as troops prepare for Chicago deployment | ReutersElon Musk's X Corp has reached a settlement with four former Twitter executives—including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal—who claimed they were owed $128 million in severance after being fired following Musk's 2022 takeover. The settlement's terms were not disclosed, but a federal judge delayed case deadlines to allow finalization. The executives alleged Musk falsely accused them of misconduct to avoid paying severance that included a year's salary and stock options. The deal follows a separate $500 million settlement with laid-off Twitter employees and is one of several legal disputes stemming from Musk's acquisition and mass restructuring of the company.Musk's X settles ex-Twitter executives' $128 million severance pay 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: Bruno Hauptmann IndictedOn October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy's body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state's forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump's high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersU.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston's continued oversight.The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They're seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston's previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.US judge who blocked Trump's mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | ReutersIn September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it's unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank's appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.Turkey floated $100 million Halkbank settlement idea at White House last month, sources say | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Moves to First StreetOn October 7, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court officially began hearing cases in its permanent home on First Street NE in Washington, D.C. For nearly 150 years prior, the Court lacked a dedicated building, conducting business in borrowed or shared spaces—including the U.S. Capitol and even a basement chamber. The move to an independent structure marked a significant moment in the institutional evolution of the federal judiciary. Designed by architect Cass Gilbert in a neoclassical style, the building was conceived as a physical expression of judicial authority, dignity, and permanence. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President, championed the idea, believing the judiciary deserved a stature equal to the executive and legislative branches.The building's design was deliberately grand, with symbolic elements such as the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the main entrance. The construction cost approximately $9 million and took four years to complete, funded entirely by Congress. Despite its marble grandeur, some justices were skeptical of the move, including Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who reportedly referred to it as “almost bombastically pretentious.” Still, the relocation marked the start of a new era for the Court—one defined by institutional independence and enhanced public visibility.The first arguments heard in the new building concerned labor and property rights, underscoring the Court's increasing role in mediating modern economic tensions. The structure has since been the site of many landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. Over time, the Supreme Court building has become not just a seat of legal authority, but a symbol of the constitutional system itself, anchoring the judiciary firmly within the federal government's tripartite structure.Illinois filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago. The legal action follows a similar move by a federal judge in Oregon, who temporarily halted the deployment of troops to Portland. Illinois' complaint targets the federal government's decision to activate up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard—against Governor J.B. Pritzker's objections—and bring in an additional 400 troops from Texas.The state argues that the deployment is illegal and part of what it calls a broader, politically motivated campaign by Trump against Democratic-led jurisdictions. The White House has not commented on the lawsuit. This marks the latest in a series of military deployments by Trump during his second term, including the use of troops at the southern border and in anti-narcotics operations off Venezuela. National Guard units have also been sent to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and Trump has expressed willingness to send them elsewhere, even without state approval. The Illinois case raises significant constitutional questions about federal authority, state sovereignty, and the domestic use of military forces.Illinois sues to block Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago | ReutersThe union representing over 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers has urged its members to remain on duty during the ongoing partial government shutdown, despite being required to work without pay. In a statement on Monday, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) warned that any job action or protest could be considered illegal and result in termination from federal service. The union emphasized the importance of maintaining professionalism and avoiding conduct that could damage their credibility or that of the aviation system.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and NATCA leadership held a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport to address the shutdown's impact on air travel. Newark, a major hub, is particularly sensitive to staffing disruptions. About 50,000 TSA employees are also working without pay.The current situation echoes the 2019 shutdown, when increased worker absences slowed air travel and pressured Congress to act. Airline industry groups are warning that flight efficiency could decline if staffing becomes unstable. The FAA is already facing a severe shortage of air traffic controllers—roughly 3,500 short of target—which has led to widespread mandatory overtime. Despite recent congressional approval of $12.5 billion for a five-year system upgrade, the shutdown threatens to further strain an already fragile workforce.Union urges air traffic controllers to remain on job despite shutdown | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, a case that underscores a growing shift in how states approach corporate income tax sourcing. The court ruled that tax liability can be based not on where services were performed or contracted, but where they were ultimately “received”—even if indirectly, by a customer's customer. In this case, Minnesota taxed income from pharmacy benefit services provided to a Wisconsin insurer because individual plan members picked up prescriptions in Minnesota.I argue this ruling highlights a troubling lack of statutory clarity. The court interpreted Minnesota's law—which sources services to where they are “received”—as encompassing end users, not just contractual customers. That interpretation hinged on the absence of the word “directly” in the statute. As I see it, courts shouldn't be in the business of stretching ambiguous language to support expansive tax liability, especially when legislatures haven't clearly articulated such intent.What's most concerning is the unpredictability this creates. If states don't codify market-based sourcing explicitly, courts may keep filling in gaps case by case, leaving companies unable to forecast where they're subject to tax. That's a serious compliance issue for businesses with complex, multi-jurisdictional operations. I argue that if states want to prioritize economic presence over contractual reality, they must write it into law—with clear definitions and limits. Otherwise, taxpayers are left navigating a patchwork of post hoc interpretations that undermine the predictability essential to sound tax policy. 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: Anita HillOn October 6, 1991, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, dramatically shifting the course of his confirmation process. Hill, who had previously worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that Thomas made repeated sexually inappropriate comments during their professional relationship. Her allegations were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee had already voted to send Thomas's nomination to the full Senate. In response, the Committee reopened the hearings, and Hill testified publicly on October 11, describing in detail the behavior she claimed to have experienced. Her testimony was televised nationally, drawing intense media coverage and sparking widespread public debate about sexual harassment, gender dynamics, and power in the workplace.The hearings were often contentious, with Hill subjected to sharp questioning from senators, many of whom expressed skepticism about her motives. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching” during his own testimony. Despite the controversy, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 vote on October 15, one of the closest margins in modern confirmation history. Hill's testimony, however, had a lasting impact beyond the nomination itself.The episode galvanized public awareness of workplace sexual harassment and is often credited with sparking a surge in women seeking elected office in 1992, dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” It also led to changes in how such allegations were addressed in professional and legal contexts. The legacy of the hearings continues to influence discussions of gender and accountability in government and law.The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today with a docket that includes significant cases related to President Donald Trump's exercise of executive power. Key cases center on Trump's efforts to impose tariffs and remove certain federal officials—moves that could test the constitutional boundaries between presidential authority and congressional control. The Court has already sided with Trump in several emergency rulings this year, including a June decision that curtailed judges' ability to block presidential policies nationwide.In addition to executive power disputes, the justices will take up cases touching on contentious social issues, including the legality of a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, rights of transgender student athletes, gun control, and race-related policies. The Court's conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.Other notable cases this term involve a Texas murder conviction potentially violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and a malpractice suit that questions whether federal courts must apply state laws requiring expert affidavits in medical negligence claims. The justices will also consider a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance and a law allowing lawsuits over property seized by the Cuban government.US Supreme Court opens new term, with major Trump cases in store | ReutersA federal judge in Oregon, Karin Immergut, has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's administration from deploying any National Guard troops—whether from Oregon or other states—to Portland. The order, issued on Sunday, follows an earlier ruling by the same judge that stopped Trump from sending 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In response, the administration tried to redirect troops from California and Texas, arguing that their prior federalization allowed for deployment anywhere. Judge Immergut rejected that argument, stating there was no justification for military presence given the current protest activity in Portland.Oregon officials accused the administration of legal “gamesmanship,” calling the attempt to bypass the initial order an affront to the court's intent. The ruling will remain in place until at least October 19 while broader legal challenges play out. The Pentagon had planned to send troops to support federal agencies like ICE and protect federal property. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also called up Texas troops for deployment in multiple cities, including Chicago and Portland.National Guard units are generally controlled by state governors unless federalized, a point central to Oregon's legal argument that Trump was overreaching by seizing control of state resources. Governor Gavin Newsom of California called the deployment an abuse of power, echoing broader concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty. Judge Immergut emphasized that presidential military authority, while broad, is not unlimited and cannot override facts on the ground or constitutional limits.US judge blocks Trump from sending any National Guard troops to Portland for now | ReutersA coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups has filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a recent proclamation by President Donald Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The plaintiffs, including the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, and others, argue that Trump exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally altering a visa program created and regulated by Congress. They claim the president cannot impose such a fee without congressional approval, calling the move unconstitutional and a misuse of executive power.The H-1B visa program, widely used by tech companies and other industries to hire skilled foreign workers, currently costs employers between $2,000 and $5,000 per application. Trump's new order blocks new visa recipients from entering the U.S. unless their sponsoring employer pays the additional $100,000. The administration claims the measure is necessary to protect American jobs, prevent wage suppression, and safeguard national security.Critics of the new policy say it amounts to a “pay-to-play” system that grants exemptions only at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs also accuse government agencies of failing to follow proper administrative rulemaking procedures and warn that the excessive fee could stifle innovation and deter employers from hiring needed talent. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions over the scope of executive authority in shaping immigration policy and regulating labor markets.Trump's $100,000 fee for H-1B worker visas challenged in 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: O.J. “Not Guilty”On October 3, 1995, a Los Angeles jury returned one of the most controversial and widely watched criminal verdicts in American history: O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. The trial, which lasted more than eight months, captivated the nation with its blend of celebrity, race, police misconduct, and media spectacle. The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene, while the defense, led by Johnnie Cochran, argued that Simpson was framed by a racist LAPD, particularly Detective Mark Fuhrman.Cochran's now-famous line — “If it doesn't fit, you must acquit” — referred to a moment when Simpson tried on gloves allegedly worn during the murders, and they appeared not to fit. The defense used that moment to cast further doubt on the prosecution's case. The jury deliberated for less than four hours before acquitting Simpson, prompting strong reactions across racial and social lines.The case exposed deep divisions in American society, particularly around race and policing. It also helped usher in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and reality-style courtroom coverage, with networks like CNN and Court TV devoting extensive airtime to the trial. The not-guilty verdict did not end Simpson's legal troubles: in 1997, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.Apple confirmed it has removed the ICEBlock app and similar tools from its App Store following pressure from the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi. ICEBlock allowed users to report and track the locations of ICE officers through crowdsourced data. Bondi stated the app endangered law enforcement officers and crossed a line by facilitating potential violence.The Department of Justice supported the move, citing safety concerns. This action followed an exposé by right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who outed the creator of a similar app, Red Dot, and accused the platforms of enabling violence against ICE agents. Loomer also claimed that a recent deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility involved the use of such tracking apps.Apple defended its decision, stating it aims to keep the App Store a “safe and trusted” space, and that ICEBlock violated policies by potentially enabling harm to law enforcement. The app's developer, Joshua Aaron, criticized the removal, comparing it to how apps like Apple Maps crowdsource speed trap locations. He argued that his app was protected by the First Amendment and that Apple's action was a concession to authoritarian demands.Tech Giant Apple Bows to MAGA Demands and Removes ICE Tracking AppsOpenAI filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI startup, xAI. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accuses OpenAI of deliberately poaching xAI employees to gain access to confidential information about Grok, xAI's chatbot, which the company claims surpasses ChatGPT in performance.OpenAI rejected the allegations, calling them baseless and part of Musk's “ongoing harassment” campaign against the company. In its filing, OpenAI argued that employees are free to leave xAI and work wherever they choose, and that it is within its rights to hire them. The company suggested xAI's legal actions are designed to cover up its internal struggles and inability to retain talent.This case is one of several legal battles unfolding between Musk and OpenAI. Musk has also filed a separate suit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. In turn, OpenAI has countersued Musk for harassment. Meanwhile, xAI has sued Apple, claiming it colluded with OpenAI to suppress competition—an accusation both companies deny and are also seeking to dismiss.OpenAI's legal response characterized xAI's complaint as a distraction from its own failings and a tactic to slow down competitors in the heated race for dominance in the AI industry.OpenAI asks court to dismiss trade-secret lawsuit from Musk's xAI | ReutersU.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to deploy Oregon's National Guard to Portland. The Trump administration had raised concerns over public comments made by Simon's wife, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, criticizing the deployment as a “gross abuse of power.” To avoid any appearance of bias, Judge Simon opted to step aside, stating the case should remain focused on its core constitutional and legal questions.The lawsuit, filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, seeks to block Trump's use of state National Guard troops, arguing it is illegal and driven by political motives. The complaint alleges Trump is exaggerating protest threats to justify federal overreach and seize control of state forces. The case has been reassigned to Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee.Bonamici, whose district includes much of Portland, made her critical remarks during a press conference with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. The Department of Justice cited her comments in its request for Simon's recusal, arguing they could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.A hearing is scheduled for Friday on Oregon's request for a temporary restraining order. Similar legal challenges are underway in California and Washington, D.C., where federal troop deployments have also faced pushback. A California judge previously ruled Trump's actions unlawful, but that decision is currently on hold pending appeal. The D.C. case remains unresolved.Judge recuses himself from Oregon National Guard case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.This week, we close with Franz Liszt's transcription (S. 464) of the first movement—Allegro con brio—from Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21. Originally premiered in 1800, this symphony marked Beethoven's formal debut in the genre, and even in its first movement, we hear the young composer testing the boundaries of the Classical form inherited from Haydn and Mozart. The opening chords start in the “wrong” key—a bold harmonic gesture that signaled Beethoven's intent to shake things up, even as he worked within a familiar structure.Liszt, the great 19th-century virtuoso and composer, took on the monumental task of transcribing all nine of Beethoven's symphonies for solo piano. The transcription of the First Symphony, catalogued as S. 464, is part of that sweeping project. These arrangements were not simply meant to showcase Liszt's pianistic brilliance (though they certainly do); they were a way to bring Beethoven's orchestral works into the drawing rooms and salons of Europe—before widespread orchestral performance or recording technology.In Liszt's hands, the Allegro con brio becomes a brilliant piano showpiece, retaining the symphony's rhythmic drive, thematic clarity, and structural ingenuity. He translates orchestral texture into ten fingers with remarkable fidelity, using tremolos, arpeggios, and dramatic dynamic shifts to recreate the energy of strings, winds, and brass. The transcription is virtuosic but never flashy for its own sake—it's an homage from one revolutionary to another.Beethoven's First Symphony bridges the Classical and Romantic eras, and Liszt's solo piano version builds a new bridge, connecting orchestral grandeur to the intimacy of a single performer. It's a reminder of both composers' commitment to pushing musical expression forward. As you listen, you may forget it's just one person at a piano—Liszt makes the entire orchestra sing.We leave you this week not only with Beethoven's bold opening statement to the symphonic world, but with Liszt's brilliant act of translation—a distillation of power, wit, and elegance, all under a single keyboard.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21 – the first movement. 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: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren's leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court's moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA's federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI's suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple's integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk's Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple's lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk's legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI's shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk's suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London's High Court, suggest that confidential details about William's 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants' favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry 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

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich tease apart some important distinctions in the Comey indictment, discuss Trump's 21-point plan for the Gaza Strip, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex RelationshipsOn October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country's strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark's action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state's new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.Texas' Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing BeginsThe U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump's administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump's spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown BeginsA federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada's acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration's approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah's appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General's method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.Though Chattah's appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.The plaintiff's lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company's handling of rider safety.Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | 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: Woodrow Wilson Supports Women's SuffrageOn September 30, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson took the unprecedented step of addressing the U.S. Senate directly to urge passage of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The House of Representatives had already approved the amendment earlier that year, but the measure had stalled in the Senate. Wilson's speech came during the final months of World War I, a context he used strategically—arguing that women had proven their patriotism and value to the nation through their labor, sacrifice, and civic contributions during wartime.Framing suffrage as a war measure and an issue of national unity, Wilson stated that denying women the vote was an injustice that undermined American democratic ideals. He contended that the world was watching and that the U.S. could not claim to fight for democracy abroad while denying it to half its citizens at home. The speech was notable both for its timing and for the fact that it came from a president who had previously been lukewarm on the issue.Wilson's appeal was a calculated political move, reflecting both the growing power of the women's suffrage movement and the need to maintain national morale. Though his speech failed to immediately sway enough senators—the amendment would not pass the Senate until June 1919—it marked a pivotal shift in executive support. Wilson's endorsement helped legitimize the movement and apply pressure on reluctant lawmakers.The Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex, was finally ratified in August 1920. Wilson's 1918 address thus stands as a key moment in the long legal and political battle for women's suffrage in the United States, symbolizing the growing alignment of public sentiment, executive advocacy, and legislative momentum that would eventually culminate in constitutional change.In an exclusive from Reuters, federal drug prosecutions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in decades, as the Trump administration shifts law enforcement priorities toward immigration enforcement. A Reuters analysis of nearly 2 million federal court records reveals that prosecutions for drug offenses are down 10% from the same period in 2024, with money laundering charges—often linked to high-level traffickers—dropping by 24%. These declines mark the slowest rate of federal drug enforcement activity since at least the late 1990s.The shift stems from President Trump's directive shortly after taking office to reallocate thousands of federal agents toward immigration-related efforts, including assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in daily raids. This redirection of resources has disrupted traditional drug enforcement operations, with agents reporting that long-term investigations have stalled and critical cases are going “stagnant.” Even fentanyl-related investigations have been sidelined due to agents being pulled into immigration duties.Despite promises of a tough-on-drugs approach—including calls for the death penalty for some dealers—the administration's actions have hollowed out the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and rerouted DEA and ATF agents to support deportation operations. These agents, often unfamiliar with immigration law, are now tasked with support roles such as transportation and crowd control during raids, sometimes simply for the sake of producing social media-friendly imagery.Meanwhile, prosecutions tied to drug importation and conspiracies have declined 6% and 15%, respectively, and gun charges associated with drug crimes have also fallen. Officials warn that the impact of this reprioritization could deepen over time, as investigations delayed today will not yield prosecutions for months or years. Nearly half of all federal criminal charges this year involve immigration violations, and over 700 federal prosecutors have been reassigned to immigration matters.While the White House defends the shift as a successful effort to reduce the flow of drugs by targeting violent criminals and cartels, law enforcement officials describe a chaotic, politically driven enforcement regime that sacrifices complex criminal investigations for visible, short-term wins. The resulting system raises concerns not only about public safety but about the long-term effectiveness of federal law enforcement priorities.Exclusive: Federal drug prosecutions fall to lowest level in decades as Trump shifts focus to deportations | ReutersThe Pentagon has deployed 200 Oregon National Guard troops under federal authority after President Donald Trump announced plans to send military forces into Portland, Oregon. The move, aimed at protecting federal immigration facilities from what Trump called “domestic terrorists,” immediately triggered a legal challenge from the state. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that the federal deployment infringes on the state's sovereign authority over its own law enforcement and National Guard.The lawsuit describes Trump's justification as exaggerated and unsupported, noting that protests against ICE in Portland have remained relatively small and peaceful since June. It also highlights a sharp decline in violent crime in the city—homicides are reportedly down 51% compared to the same time last year—raising further questions about the necessity of military intervention.The deployment order took even top Pentagon officials by surprise, with several describing it as a “bolt from the blue.” Defense Secretary Hegseth's memo authorizing the deployment was later attached as evidence in Oregon's lawsuit. Portland officials, including Mayor Keith Wilson, were not informed of the plan in advance and reportedly learned about it via social media.Trump's rhetoric about using “full force” remains ambiguous, with no clarification on whether that includes authorization of lethal force or under what conditions it could be used. Historically, U.S. troops deployed domestically are only permitted to use force in self-defense. The sudden move has heightened tensions, particularly following a recent shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas that left one detainee dead and two others injured. Critics argue the administration's increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement risks politicizing the military and provoking unnecessary conflict in U.S. cities.Pentagon calls up 200 National Guard troops after Trump Portland announcement | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I explore a recent tariff investigation. The investigation into computer peripheral manufacturer Anker Innovations' alleged tariff evasion highlights how modern tariff enforcement has evolved into a sprawling, bureaucratic effort that diverts taxpayer resources toward compliance rather than bolstering domestic industry. Rather than serving as effective tools of economic nationalism, tariffs often end up creating work for customs officials, trade lawyers, and compliance consultants. Each adjustment to tariff classifications triggers complex administrative networks that contradict the ideal of limited government.This system's irony deepens when considering that agencies like the IRS are underfunded, even as policymakers lean more on tariffs—a less efficient and more easily manipulated revenue source. The result is a compliance-heavy environment that benefits well-resourced firms while leaving smaller importers at a disadvantage. Investigating potential violations can be costly and time-consuming, encouraging selective enforcement and fostering a procedural limbo where discretion and inefficiency thrive.The current approach, which places tariff power largely in the executive branch, introduces volatility and undermines predictability in trade policy. Companies may invest heavily in litigation over classification issues, only to see the rules change mid-process. This undermines confidence in the system and raises the risk of corruption and favoritism. I argue that returning tariff authority to Congress and reinvigorating corporate tax enforcement would make the system more equitable and effective. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John André ConvictedOn September 29, 1780, Major John André of the British Army was convicted by a Continental Army court martial for his role in a conspiracy with American General Benedict Arnold. André had been captured behind American lines near Tarrytown, New York, carrying incriminating documents that detailed Arnold's treasonous plan to surrender the key American fort at West Point to the British. Disguised in civilian clothes and using a false passport, André was found to be operating as a spy rather than a conventional enemy officer.General George Washington ordered the formation of a board of senior officers, including Generals Nathanael Greene and Marquis de Lafayette, to determine André's fate. The court martial found him guilty of acting under false pretenses and ruled that he should be hanged as a spy rather than shot as a soldier—a distinction of enormous symbolic and legal consequence. Despite André's honorable conduct and appeals for a more dignified execution, Washington upheld the sentence.André's execution, carried out on October 2, 1780, marked a turning point in the American Revolution's approach to wartime law, espionage, and loyalty. It also crystallized the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, whose escape to British lines allowed him to avoid prosecution. The case highlighted how military justice operated during wartime, often blending evidentiary hearings with moral and strategic considerations. The outcome emphasized the seriousness with which the Continental Army treated the laws of war, especially in cases of clandestine operations and treason.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in foreign aid despite Congress having already appropriated the funds. The aid was intended for programs including United Nations peacekeeping and global democracy-promotion efforts. The ruling came after a lower court, led by Judge Amir Ali, had ordered the administration to release the funds, siding with aid groups that filed the lawsuit. In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court questioned whether those groups had legal standing and warned that enforcing the lower court's ruling could infringe on the president's authority over foreign policy.The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan criticizing the majority for undermining the Constitution's separation of powers. She argued that once Congress passes appropriations laws, the executive branch is legally required to carry them out unless Congress acts to change them. The Trump administration defended its actions as aligned with its “America First” foreign policy, claiming the spending conflicted with current U.S. interests. To withhold the funds, it used a “pocket rescission” strategy—an obscure method to delay spending long enough for the funds to expire.This decision reflects a broader trend of the Supreme Court supporting Trump-era policies, especially those halted by lower courts. Critics warn the ruling could set a precedent that weakens congressional control over federal spending. Legal scholars note that Trump's withholding of appropriated funds through this method is without historical precedent and could have significant humanitarian consequences globally.US Supreme Court lets Trump withhold $4 billion in foreign aid | ReutersThe Texas Supreme Court issued a preliminary opinion suggesting that the American Bar Association (ABA) should no longer control which Texas law schools qualify to send graduates to the state bar exam. Under proposed rule changes, that authority would shift to the Texas Supreme Court itself. The court would use what it calls “simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” such as bar passage rates, rather than relying on the ABA's existing standards.While the justices don't expect immediate changes to the current list of approved schools, the proposal marks a significant shift in how legal education could be regulated in Texas. Public comments will be accepted through December 1, with the rules potentially taking effect on January 1, 2026. The move comes amid broader conservative criticism of the ABA, particularly its diversity and inclusion standards, which have drawn opposition from the Trump administration and other Republican-led states like Florida and Ohio.Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock criticized the ABA for lacking ideological neutrality, saying it no longer represents the views of all lawyers. In response, eight out of ten Texas law school deans warned that severing ties with the ABA could damage national reputations and reduce access to quality legal services in the state.ABA Accreditation Should End in Texas, Justices Say TentativelyPresident Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, directly challenging longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. His proposal would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. This represents a sharp departure from over a century of constitutional understanding, which has granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' status.Trump's legal team argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to children of those fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction—namely, citizens or lawful permanent residents—not to the children of temporary visa holders or undocumented immigrants. The administration is appealing a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the executive order as an unconstitutional reinterpretation of settled law.This appeal marks the first time the Supreme Court is being asked to rule directly on the legality of such a restriction. In past cases, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court upheld citizenship for those born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. Trump's team is also asking the Court to consider a related case brought by individual plaintiffs, even though it hasn't reached the appellate level, in hopes of securing a broad ruling.Trump Asks Supreme Court to Curb Birthright Citizenship (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Jay CommissionedOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the establishment of the American judiciary. Nominated by President George Washington and swiftly confirmed by the Senate, Jay took the helm of the newly formed Supreme Court just one day after the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law. His appointment signaled the beginning of the federal judiciary as a coequal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.Jay was already a prominent figure in American political life, having served as President of the Continental Congress, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. As Chief Justice, he led a court that initially had little authority or docket, with its first session delayed until February 1790 due to logistical difficulties and lack of cases.Despite the Court's limited power at the time, Jay helped lay the groundwork for its future role. In Chisholm v. Georgia(1793), Jay authored an opinion asserting federal judicial authority over state governments, a controversial stance that ultimately led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. His tenure also saw diplomatic service; while still Chief Justice, he negotiated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794 to resolve lingering post-Revolutionary War disputes.Jay resigned in 1795 after being elected Governor of New York and declined a later offer from President John Adams to return to the bench. His brief but influential time as Chief Justice helped define the legitimacy and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey, escalating what critics describe as President Donald Trump's campaign of retribution against political adversaries. Comey faces two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony in which he denied authorizing anonymous leaks related to an FBI investigation. The indictment claims he actually did authorize such disclosures. However, the charges are notably sparse, lacking detailed supporting facts or corroborating evidence typically included in indictments of this gravity.The case has drawn intense scrutiny within the Justice Department. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly advised against filing charges due to insufficient evidence, and the district's top prosecutor resigned last week after expressing concern about political interference. Tensions escalated when U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—formerly Trump's defense attorney—personally presented the case to the grand jury, an unusual move suggesting top-level involvement. Notably, the grand jury declined to indict Comey on a third proposed charge, highlighting doubts about the prosecution's strength.Legal experts and former officials, including Obama-era ethics advisor Norm Eisen, have condemned the indictment as politically motivated. Comey maintains his innocence and says he welcomes a trial. Members of his family, including his son-in-law and daughter, have faced professional consequences, which Comey's supporters view as further evidence of political targeting. The charges represent a sharp departure from norms intended to shield law enforcement from partisan use.Former FBI chief Comey charged as Trump ramps up campaign against critics | ReutersA federal judge in California has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion class action settlement between authors and the AI company Anthropic, marking a major development in the legal battles over generative AI's use of copyrighted materials. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the agreement as fair during a Thursday hearing, though final approval is still pending. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought the lawsuit, accusing Anthropic of training its AI assistant Claude using millions of pirated books without permission.This settlement is the first in a growing wave of lawsuits targeting companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft for allegedly infringing on creators' rights through large-scale data scraping to train AI models. Although Alsup had previously ruled that some of Anthropic's training practices fell under fair use, he determined the company crossed the line by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a centralized database not strictly tied to AI training.The judge had initially hesitated to approve the deal and demanded further clarification from both sides, but now appears inclined to allow it to proceed to the notification stage for affected authors. If finalized, the agreement could signal a broader shift toward holding AI developers financially accountable for unauthorized content use. Publishing industry leaders have praised the development as a step toward curbing what they see as systemic, unchecked copyright violations in AI development. Anthropic, meanwhile, emphasized its commitment to safe and responsible AI.US judge preliminarily approves $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement | ReutersKathryn Nester, a seasoned Utah criminal defense attorney and former top federal public defender, has been appointed to represent Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event on September 10. The state is seeking the death penalty against Robinson, who faces a charge of aggravated murder.Nester has a history of representing clients in high-profile and controversial cases. She previously defended Lyle Jeffs, a fugitive leader of a polygamous sect convicted of food stamp fraud, and John Earnest, the gunman in the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting, before stepping down due to a conflict of interest. She also defended a Utah doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines—a case later dropped—and is currently representing Kouri Richins, a children's author now charged with poisoning her husband.Her firm, Nester Lewis, has strong ties to Utah's federal public defense system. Her partner, Wendy Lewis, once represented Brian David Mitchell, the man convicted in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Robinson's case is expected to cost Utah County at least $750,000 for the defense alone, with over $1.3 million budgeted for the total prosecution and defense efforts.Robinson's next court appearance is scheduled for Monday. Nester has declined public comment on the case.Attorney representing Charlie Kirk's accused killer is former top public defender | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.Born on September 26, 1898, George Gershwin occupies a unique place in American music history—standing at the intersection of classical composition, jazz improvisation, and Broadway flair. Raised in Brooklyn to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, Gershwin began his musical life on the piano and quickly showed an uncanny ability to absorb and reshape the sounds of his time. Though he composed everything from operas to show tunes, it was Rhapsody in Blue, written in 1924 when he was just 25, that cemented his legacy.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman for a concert intended to bridge classical and popular music, Rhapsody in Blue was composed in a rush—famously sketched out on train rides and completed with the help of orchestrator Ferde Grofé. The piece opens with its iconic clarinet glissando, a spontaneous flourish during rehearsal that Gershwin decided to keep, and unfolds into a sweeping blend of jazz rhythms, bluesy melodies, and symphonic ambition. It captured something distinctly American—urban, restless, full of promise.Rhapsody in Blue premiered at Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, 1924, with Gershwin himself at the piano. The audience included titans like Sergei Rachmaninoff and Jascha Heifetz, and the piece earned immediate acclaim. Though critics at the time debated whether it was truly “serious” music, it has since become a cornerstone of 20th-century composition and a symbol of American cultural identity.For Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue was not a departure from classical form but a statement that American music—jazz, blues, Tin Pan Alley—deserved a place in the concert hall. More than a century later, it remains as fresh and vibrant as the city that inspired it.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, the first movement–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: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | 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: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | 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: Little Rock NineOn September 23, 1957, nine African American students, later known as the Little Rock Nine, were barred from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite a federal court order mandating desegregation. This confrontation became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement and a key test of federal authority to enforce the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the National Guard earlier that month to prevent the students from entering the school, citing concerns about public safety. On September 23, the students attempted to enter the school through a side door. Although they briefly succeeded, a growing and increasingly violent white mob outside forced officials to remove the students for their safety. The local police were unable to contain the mob, highlighting the state's failure to comply with federal law.The national spotlight turned sharply toward Little Rock, prompting President Dwight D. Eisenhower to intervene. The next day, September 24, he federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the students' right to attend the school, which they did under armed guard on September 25.This event marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were used in the South to enforce civil rights. It underscored the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and the power of the federal government to uphold civil rights against state resistance.President Trump is set to sign an executive order this week confirming that a proposed deal to restructure TikTok's U.S. operations will satisfy the 2024 law requiring divestment from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. Under the arrangement, ByteDance would retain less than 20% ownership, while American investors—including Trump-aligned figures like Lachlan Murdoch, Larry Ellison, and Michael Dell—would take control of the U.S. business. The restructuring would install a U.S.-based board with national security credentials, aiming to quell longstanding fears that TikTok user data could be accessed by the Chinese government.The executive order also pauses enforcement of the divestment mandate for 120 days, buying time to finalize the deal and secure regulatory sign-offs. While the U.S. government will not take a board seat or a “golden share,” it remains unclear whether the final agreement will involve any direct financial benefit to the federal government. Still, Trump's fingerprints are all over the transaction, from its nationalistic framing to the prominent role of political allies in the investor pool. He's even credited TikTok with helping him connect to young voters—a not-so-subtle nod to the platform's political utility heading into 2026.This deal marks rare progress in U.S.-China economic talks, which have been largely stalled amid broader trade tensions. But it also reflects a larger trend: Trump's willingness to insert the federal government directly into private sector negotiations, whether by greenlighting chip exports to China or taking equity in major tech firms. Critics argue such moves undermine free-market principles and risk long-term damage to U.S. competitiveness. Supporters, however, see it as strategic economic defense.In short, Trump's TikTok solution is part national security play, part corporate reshuffling, and part political theater. Whether it holds up legally—or operationally—may matter less than the narrative: the U.S. regaining control of a culturally dominant platform while sidelining Beijing.Lachlan Murdoch, Michael Dell, Ellison involved in TikTok deal, Trump says | ReutersTrump will sign order declaring TikTok deal meets 2024 law requirements | ReutersK&L Gates is closing its Beijing office, becoming the latest U.S. law firm to retreat from China amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and a sluggish legal market. The Pittsburgh-based firm will consolidate its Beijing operations into its Shanghai office following a leadership review of global strategy and real estate. The move comes under new global managing partner Stacy Ackermann, who took the helm in July.Though K&L Gates will maintain a presence in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia, its exit from Beijing reflects a broader trend. Over the past two years, major U.S. firms like Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb, and Winston & Strawn have also shuttered offices in China due to declining deal flow and increased scrutiny of foreign businesses. While some firms continue to operate in Chinese cities, the heyday of aggressive U.S. legal expansion into China—peaking about a decade ago—appears to be over. The firm's departure underscores the mounting challenges of navigating China's legal environment in an era of strategic decoupling.K&L Gates closes Beijing office as US law firms continue China market retreat | ReutersZillow is facing a new proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of deceiving homebuyers by steering them toward its own network of affiliated agents rather than the actual listing agents. Filed in Seattle, the suit claims Zillow's platform misleads users into contacting agents who financially benefit the company—sometimes giving Zillow as much as 40% of their commissions—without disclosing this arrangement to buyers or sellers.The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, argues that these tactics violate both Washington state consumer protection laws and federal real estate laws by inflating commissions and limiting consumer choice. The suit alleges Zillow's practices result in higher home prices and a lack of transparency about who truly represents the buyer's interests. The legal team behind the suit characterizes Zillow's business model as one that exploits consumers' need for housing to boost profits.Zillow has pushed back, calling the lawsuit a misrepresentation of its operations and defending its model as pro-consumer. This case adds to a growing list of legal challenges for the real estate giant, which is already battling other lawsuits over competition and marketing practices, including one from brokerage Compass and another from Homes.com owner CoStar.New lawsuit accuses Zillow of deceiving home buyers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that as states try to modernize sales tax rules for the digital economy, they should stop framing digital offerings as either “goods” or “services” and start taxing them based on function. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is circulating a proposal to define “automated digital products” as those sold with minimal human intervention. While well-intentioned, this definition is fuzzy and risks creating more confusion than clarity. For example, how do we categorize a chatbot that occasionally escalates to a live agent, or AI tools that require ongoing human training? These gray areas aren't new—states have spent years litigating whether software is tangible, intangible, or a service, and this could be a repeat of that same cycle.Instead of defining digital products by how much human effort goes into delivering them, we should define them by what they do. A Netflix subscription is entertainment. QuickBooks is a productivity tool. Therapy on Zoom is health care. Consumers already experience digital services this way, and tax codes should align accordingly. Function-based categories would mirror existing tax practices, like how business deductions or ticket sales are handled, and would be far easier to scale to emerging technologies.It's true that a functional model still faces edge cases—ChatGPT, for instance, could be research, productivity, or entertainment depending on use. But these are better problems to have than trying to parse human involvement in the delivery pipeline. If states want to tax digital products sensibly, they need a system that reflects how people actually use these tools, not how they're coded or deployed. 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: Eight Executed for Witchcraft in MassachusettsOn September 22, 1692, eight individuals—six women and two men—were executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, marking the final hangings of the infamous Salem Witch Trials. Among the condemned were Martha Corey, Mary Easty, Alice Parker, Mary Parker, Ann Pudeator, Wilmot Redd, Margaret Scott, and Samuel Wardwell. This date is significant as it represents the culmination of a months-long hysteria that began in early 1692, spurred by accusations from young girls and sanctioned by a special court convened to root out witchcraft. The trials relied heavily on "spectral evidence"—testimony that the accused's spirit had appeared to the accusers—which would later be discredited. The executions were carried out at Proctor's Ledge, near Gallows Hill.The public mood began to shift by the fall of 1692. Prominent ministers and members of the community, including Increase Mather, began speaking out against the trials, criticizing the reliance on uncorroborated testimony and the erosion of due process. Following the September 22 executions, no further hangings took place, and the special court was dissolved in October. In early 1693, Governor William Phips pardoned many of the remaining accused.The Salem Witch Trials are now viewed as a stark example of mass hysteria and judicial failure. Legal safeguards we take for granted today, such as the right to confront one's accuser and standards for admissible evidence, were notably absent. Over time, the Massachusetts government issued apologies, and the trials have become a lasting symbol of injustice.President Trump announced the appointment of his former attorney, Lindsey Halligan, as the new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The move comes amid growing pressure from Trump on Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political opponents more aggressively. In social media posts, Trump demanded action against figures such as former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing frustration over delays and lack of indictments. Halligan, who previously represented Trump in legal battles following the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search, replaces Erik Siebert, who resigned following Trump's public criticism.Trump praised Bondi's overall performance but hinted at dissatisfaction with the pace of investigations. While he continues to support her publicly, his remarks suggest growing impatience. Bondi has also faced internal criticism over her handling of high-profile issues, including the Jeffrey Epstein files. Halligan's appointment surprised some in the Justice Department, as another official, Mary "Maggie" Cleary, reportedly believed she had been selected for the post.Trump administration sources say Siebert had resisted pushing charges against James and Comey due to weak evidence, which may have led to his ouster. The Eastern District office is currently involved in politically sensitive investigations tied to Trump's previous legal conflicts and campaign inquiries.Trump Picks New Virgina Prosecutor After Scolding Bondi InactionTrump picks former attorney to be top prosecutor, as he pressures Bondi to investigate foes | ReutersGoogle is facing a major antitrust trial in Virginia, where the U.S. Department of Justice and several states are pushing to force the company to sell its ad exchange platform, AdX. The government argues that Google has unlawfully monopolized the web advertising market, particularly by tying AdX to its publisher ad server, which publishers use to manage digital ad inventory. Judge Leonie Brinkema previously ruled that Google holds monopoly power in this area and will now decide what remedies to impose following the trial.The DOJ wants Google to not only divest AdX but also open-source the auction system that determines which ads get placed when users load a webpage. Google has countered that such proposals are impractical and could destabilize the digital advertising ecosystem. The company had earlier considered selling AdX in EU negotiations but is now proposing policy changes to allow more competition on its platforms.The trial has significant implications for the broader tech industry, as part of a larger bipartisan effort to regulate major tech firms including Meta, Amazon, and Apple. Testimony is expected from media industry executives, including former officials from News Corp and DailyMail.com, who have accused Google of prioritizing its own interests in ad placements. If current remedies fail to improve competition within four years, the DOJ wants Google to also sell its publisher ad server.Google seeks to avoid ad tech breakup as antitrust trial begins | ReutersLawyers for Luigi Mangione, the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, are asking a federal judge to block the death penalty in his case. In a court filing, they argued that Mangione's due process rights were violated, pointing to a highly publicized and "dehumanizing" perp walk in which he was shown in shackles being escorted from a helicopter. They claim this media spectacle, along with public comments from officials—including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—created a prejudicial environment from the outset of the case.Mangione has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder and interstate stalking. Thompson was fatally shot on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel during an investment conference. While the killing was widely condemned, public sentiment has been mixed, with some sympathizing with Mangione's frustration over rising healthcare costs. The case has also fueled broader concerns about politically motivated violence following other recent high-profile incidents.Prosecutors have until October 31 to argue in favor of pursuing the death penalty, which would be decided by a jury if Mangione is convicted. His next federal court appearance is December 5. In parallel, Mangione is facing nine state charges, though two terrorism-related counts were recently dismissed. While New York abolished the death penalty in 2004 for state crimes, it remains a legal option in federal prosecutions.Luigi Mangione's lawyers urge judge to block death penalty over insurance CEO's murder | ReutersA U.S. federal court will soon decide whether Danish energy firm Ørsted and its partner Skyborn Renewables can resume construction on the Revolution Wind offshore project, which was halted by the Trump administration in August. Located 15 miles off Rhode Island's coast, the project is designed to power 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut. Ørsted, claiming losses of $2 million per day during the stoppage, argues the administration did not follow proper procedures in issuing the stop-work order and is seeking a preliminary injunction from Judge Royce Lamberth.The Interior Department initially cited vague national security concerns through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management but later claimed Ørsted failed to comply with permit conditions. These included coordination with the U.S. Navy and NOAA to address military and scientific survey impacts. Ørsted disputes these claims, stating it has met the requirements and that the government's objections were raised only after litigation began.The Biden administration approved the project in 2023, but President Trump has moved to roll back offshore wind developments, calling them costly and unsightly. The outcome of the court's decision could impact both the future of the Revolution Wind project and the broader U.S. offshore wind sector.US court weighs Trump halt on Rhode Island offshore wind project | 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: Lord Haw-Haw SentencedOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce—infamously known as “Lord Haw-Haw”—was sentenced to death by a British court for high treason. Joyce had gained notoriety during World War II for broadcasting Nazi propaganda over German radio to British audiences, aiming to demoralize Allied troops and civilians. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the UK and Ireland, Joyce later became a naturalized German citizen and an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler. His broadcasts, delivered in a nasal, sneering voice, opened with the phrase “Germany calling,” and earned him the derisive nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" from British listeners.After the war, Joyce was captured by British forces in Germany and brought back to the UK to stand trial. Despite his German citizenship, the court ruled that he had committed treason because he had held a British passport when he began working for the Nazis. His legal defense argued that he owed no allegiance to Britain at the time of the broadcasts, but the court held that possession of the passport created a duty of allegiance. The case raised significant questions about the limits of national loyalty and the reach of British treason laws.On January 6, 1946, Joyce was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison, becoming one of the last people to be executed for treason in the UK. The trial and execution were controversial, with some legal scholars and public commentators questioning the soundness of the court's interpretation of allegiance. Nevertheless, the sentence was seen by many at the time as a necessary response to one of the most prominent domestic collaborators of the war.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), long considered a cost-effective and critical pillar of U.S. workplace safety, has been effectively dismantled under the Trump administration's 2025 restructuring efforts. The agency, a division of the CDC responsible for certifying N95 masks, studying firefighter deaths, and leading occupational health research, saw roughly 90% of its 1,000 staff receive layoff notices on April 1. This move paralyzed core programs, from black lung screenings to PPE certifications, halting NIOSH's role as both a public safeguard and a quiet corporate consultant. The sudden cuts sparked chaos: lab animals were euthanized, crucial research was frozen, and businesses warned of safety gaps and market instability.Many affected workers have since resigned or are stuck on administrative leave, while others remain in limbo as lawsuits challenge the legality of the terminations. Despite statements from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming essential functions remain intact, internal confusion and partial walk-backs—like budget proposals still seeking to slash 80% of NIOSH funding—suggest deeper dismantling intentions. Business leaders, labor unions, and safety advocates have united in rare bipartisan pushback, warning of long-term risks to both worker health and industrial standards.The agency's downfall is part of a broader campaign to weaken the federal workforce, spearheaded by Project 2025 architects and executed with sweeping firings, anti-DEI mandates, and deep budget cuts across agencies. Former government scientists describe the collapse of safety infrastructure as a slow, invisible crisis—where the full damage may not emerge for years. With morale shattered and talent fleeing, the future of U.S. workplace safety research is in jeopardy.Trump Team Derailed Corporate America's Most Valuable ConsultantTwo major elements of President Donald Trump's economic agenda—his global tariffs and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions about the scope of presidential power. The court has agreed to hear a challenge to Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, a law traditionally used to sanction hostile foreign actors, not manage trade. Arguments are set for November 5. Separately, Trump is seeking to fire Cook, claiming misconduct; however, critics argue this is a pretext for targeting her policy views and that doing so violates the 1913 law establishing the Fed's independence.Legal scholars warn that siding with Trump in either case could dramatically expand executive authority. Trump has already tested legal boundaries across immigration, diversity, and civil service policy. While lower courts have often blocked his initiatives, the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees—has frequently sided with him. The Cook case raises unprecedented constitutional questions, as no president has ever removed a Fed governor.Meanwhile, Trump's tariff actions have destabilized global trade relations and spurred economic uncertainty, though his allies argue they are central to his economic strategy. A decision favoring Trump in both cases could weaken institutional checks on executive power and erode the principle of independent monetary policy.Key parts of Trump's economic agenda now in Supreme Court's hands | ReutersIn Washington, D.C., immigrant neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant, Petworth, and Columbia Heights are pushing back against a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests under President Donald Trump's intensified immigration enforcement campaign. Local residents have begun organizing in real-time—using chat groups and in-person protests—to disrupt ICE detentions, including a recent case where bystanders successfully pressured officers to release a Guatemalan man. These actions reflect growing distrust and fear within largely Latino communities, where residents report increased racial profiling and aggressive policing.The Trump administration's recent declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., coupled with the federalization of local police and a heightened ICE presence, has heightened tensions, especially in areas with deep immigrant roots. Community members and advocacy groups say people are being targeted based on appearance or location, not criminal history. Businesses that once bustled with immigrant patrons are seeing sharp declines in foot traffic, as many residents now avoid public spaces out of fear.Federal officials defend the enforcement as targeting serious offenders, but critics point out that many arrests involve individuals without criminal records. A Supreme Court ruling this month has further enabled ICE to continue race- or location-based arrests. Meanwhile, residents like Yessica Gonzalez and Nelvin Rodriguez say the climate of fear is unlike anything they've previously experienced. The increased enforcement has not only disrupted lives but also strained local economies and community trust.Washington's immigrant neighborhoods push back against ICE arrests | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires, a veteran intellectual property attorney and former Goldman Sachs executive, as the new head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under President Donald Trump. Squires takes over at a critical time, as the agency grapples with global competition from China and emerging legal challenges surrounding artificial intelligence in the patent process. His appointment follows a broad push by Senate Republicans to confirm a slate of Trump nominees despite Democratic opposition.Squires brings a deep background in both corporate and legal arenas, having worked on IP and tech issues at firms like Honeywell and most recently at Dilworth Paxson, where he focused on AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity. He has also taught at the University of Pennsylvania. His predecessor, Kathi Vidal, led the USPTO during the Biden administration and returned to private practice following Trump's 2024 election victory.The USPTO plays a vital role in the American innovation ecosystem, handling patent and trademark applications and advising the government on intellectual property policy. The agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board frequently mediates high-stakes disputes over patent validity, especially in the tech sector. Squires steps into the role amid heightened political scrutiny, including a controversial Commerce Department order to review patents held by Harvard University as part of a broader White House campaign linked to campus antisemitism concerns.US Senate confirms Trump's pick to run US Patent and Trademark Office | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.This week's closing theme comes from one of the most enigmatic works in the orchestral repertoire: Mahler's Symphony No. 7, specifically its haunting first movement, Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo. Composed between 1904 and 1905 and premiered on September 19, 1908, this symphony marks a fascinating midpoint in Mahler's artistic evolution—bridging the lush Romanticism of his earlier works with the more fractured, modernist terrain of his later symphonies.The first movement opens with a dark, slow introduction featuring the eerie voice of the tenor horn, an instrument rarely heard in symphonic writing. Its strange, searching call sets a tone of unease, as if the music is emerging from shadow. What follows is a restless march full of contrasts—grim fanfares, lyrical episodes, and bursts of uneasy energy—all presented with Mahler's characteristic sense of orchestral color and irony.Unlike the more spiritual or pastoral moods of Mahler's other symphonies, the Seventh is often described as "problematic," even "nightmarish"—a label Mahler himself rejected. He referred to the symphony as a progression “from night into day,” and this opening movement represents the beginning of that journey: turbulent, disoriented, and shot through with moments of beauty and menace.Mahler's orchestration here is dense and highly detailed, often requiring massive forces and unconventional instruments. Yet beneath its complexity lies a deep emotional current—one that shifts rapidly from the grotesque to the sublime. The movement ends not with resolution but with a kind of defiant uncertainty, a theme Mahler would continue to explore in his final works.As our closing theme this week, Langsam – Allegro reminds us that the path through darkness is rarely straightforward—and that art, like life, often resists tidy interpretation.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo– 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: Fugitive Slave ActOn September 18, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, intensifying the national divide over slavery. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the law mandated that all escaped enslaved individuals, upon capture, be returned to their enslavers and that officials and citizens of free states were legally obligated to cooperate. Federal commissioners were authorized to issue arrest warrants without a jury trial, and those accused had no right to testify in their own defense.The law also imposed heavy penalties on anyone aiding a fugitive, including fines and imprisonment, which provoked outrage among abolitionists and free Black communities. The act effectively nationalized the institution of slavery, forcing even anti-slavery states to participate in its enforcement. This led to dramatic and sometimes violent resistance, including the formation of vigilance committees and the expansion of the Underground Railroad.Free Black Americans faced new dangers under the law, as it encouraged bounty hunters and unscrupulous officials to seize and enslave them under false pretenses. Several high-profile cases, such as the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston in 1854, drew mass protests and highlighted the law's harsh impact. The Fugitive Slave Act deepened sectional tensions and hardened Northern opposition to slavery, pushing the nation closer to civil war.A Chapter 7 trustee for the bankrupt fintech startup GloriFi has filed a $1.7 billion malpractice lawsuit against law firm Winston & Strawn and its Houston managing partner, Michael Blankenship. The suit alleges the firm prioritized the interests of GloriFi's founder, Texas oil investor Toby Neugebauer, over the company's, ultimately contributing to its collapse. GloriFi—formally known as With Purpose Inc.—marketed itself as an “anti-woke” financial institution aimed at conservative consumers. The complaint claims Winston & Strawn enabled Neugebauer to engage in self-dealing, manipulate board control, and undermine corporate governance, deterring major investors and derailing a proposed SPAC merger that once valued the company at $1.7 billion.The trustee accuses the firm of negligence, fiduciary breaches, and aiding fraudulent transfers, alleging its conduct drove investor confidence down and played a key role in the company's failure. Winston & Strawn denies wrongdoing and promises to contest the "meritless claims." The legal action follows a court-approved settlement earlier this year that allowed GloriFi's trustee to pursue claims via a separate entity tied to one of the investors. This is one of multiple legal efforts by the trustee, who previously sued Chapman & Cutler LLP over similar allegations related to Neugebauer's control of the company. High-profile backers of GloriFi included Peter Thiel, Ken Griffin, Vivek Ramaswamy, and an aide to former Vice President Mike Pence.Winston & Strawn Sued in ‘Anti-Woke' Bank Startup Bankruptcy (1)A U.S. immigration judge ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling is based on allegations that Khalil intentionally misrepresented facts on his green card application. Khalil's legal team disputes the decision and plans to appeal, citing a separate federal court order that currently prevents his detention or deportation while his civil rights case proceeds.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was previously held for over 100 days by immigration authorities and missed the birth of his child while in custody. He was released in June after a federal judge criticized his prolonged detention over a civil immigration issue as unconstitutional. Khalil claims the government's efforts to remove him are retaliatory, tied to his outspoken pro-Palestinian activism and free speech. He argues that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated.The case has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about the erosion of due process and free speech rights, especially in the context of recent federal pressure on universities to curtail pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia University, where Khalil studies, was a focal point of such demonstrations in the previous year.US immigration judge orders Khalil deportation, his lawyers say separate ruling protects him for now | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Amazon violated consumer protection laws by collecting billing information for its Prime subscription service before clearly disclosing the full terms, giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a partial win in its case against the company. The FTC alleges Amazon used deceptive practices to enroll tens of millions of users in Prime without proper consent and made cancellations deliberately difficult. The judge found that these actions potentially violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), and that Amazon cannot argue ROSCA doesn't apply to Prime signups.U.S. District Judge John Chun also held that two Amazon executives could be held personally liable if violations are proven at trial. The FTC's consumer protection chief, Chris Mufarrige, said the ruling confirms Amazon misled consumers. Amazon maintains that neither the company nor the executives acted improperly, and claims it has always prioritized customer experience. The outcome of the upcoming trial could significantly affect how subscription services manage disclosures and cancellations going forward.Amazon violated online shopper protection law, judge rules ahead of Prime signup trial | ReutersA federal appeals court has blocked, for now, the Trump administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The proposed reorganization, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., included cutting 10,000 jobs, shutting half of HHS's regional offices, and consolidating key functions across agencies like the CDC and FDA. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's injunction, siding with 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that argued the plan would cause immediate harm.The appellate panel, composed entirely of Biden-appointed judges, found the administration failed to demonstrate why the injunction should be lifted while the case is under appeal. The court cited extensive evidence from state officials showing how the restructuring already disrupted public health services, including disease tracking and early childhood programs like Head Start. In July, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled the administration lacked the authority to unilaterally restructure agencies created by Congress and ordered a halt to the planned cuts at four major agencies.The administration argued the suit was speculative and claimed employee firings should be handled through internal federal channels. However, the court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that the states have a direct and tangible interest due to their reliance on federal services. The case remains ongoing, with significant implications for executive authority over federal agencies.Trump administration cannot proceed with overhaul of US health agencies, court rules | ReutersMorgan & Morgan, a major U.S. personal injury law firm, has filed a lawsuit against Disney in federal court in Orlando, seeking a ruling that it can use a parody-style ad referencing Steamboat Willie without infringing Disney's intellectual property rights. Although Disney's copyright on the 1928 short film—which introduced Mickey and Minnie Mouse—expired last year, the company still holds related trademarks. The lawsuit comes after Disney declined to confirm whether it would object to the ad when contacted by the firm.The disputed ad, styled in the animation style of Steamboat Willie, shows Minnie Mouse calling Morgan & Morgan after Mickey crashes a boat into her car. The ad contains a disclaimer distancing it from Disney. Citing Disney's aggressive enforcement history—such as a recent trademark suit over Steamboat Willie jewelry—the firm is asking the court to preemptively declare that its ad does not violate Disney's IP and to block any potential lawsuit from the company.Morgan & Morgan argues that the uncertainty created by Disney's refusal to clarify its position prompted the need for legal action. The firm is known for its extensive advertising efforts, having spent over $218 million on legal services ads in the previous year.Disney sued by law firm Morgan & Morgan over 'Steamboat Willie' ad | 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: Treaty of Fort PittOn September 17, 1778, the Treaty of Fort Pitt—also known as the Treaty of Fort Pitt or the Delaware Treaty—was signed between the newly independent United States and the Lenape (Delaware) Nation. It was the first formal treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe, signaling an alliance during the Revolutionary War against British forces. The treaty, negotiated at Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), promised military collaboration, mutual defense, and provisions for supplies and protection for the Lenape people. In a striking and largely symbolic provision, the treaty even entertained the idea of creating a 14th state within the Union to be governed by Native Americans.Though the treaty framed the Lenape as equal partners, its promises were quickly eroded by reality. The United States failed to deliver many of the resources it pledged, and the idea of a Native-governed state was abandoned almost as soon as it was proposed. Lenape leaders had agreed to the treaty in part out of necessity, caught between colonial and British expansion and hoping to safeguard their people's survival. Instead, they faced encroachment, displacement, and repeated betrayals.Within a few years, American militias and settlers would violate the treaty's terms, seizing land and disregarding Lenape sovereignty. The alliance never materialized in the way it was envisioned. The treaty, once a beacon of potential cooperation, became an early example of the fragility of Native-American treaties with the United States. It set a precedent for broken agreements that would recur throughout American expansion.A Senate report released by Democrats on September 17, 2025, criticized KPMG LLP for failing to act on warning signs at Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank prior to their 2023 collapses. The auditors issued clean reports just weeks before the banks failed due to rising interest rates and liquidity issues, yet they allegedly ignored key red flags such as massive asset devaluations, governance concerns, and internal risk assessments. Lawmakers said KPMG adopted an overly narrow view of its responsibilities and maintained close, long-term relationships with the banks, raising questions about its objectivity. The report highlighted a revolving door between KPMG and the banks, with executives and audit staff frequently moving between roles. KPMG defended its audits, saying it followed U.S. standards and criticized the report as out of step with other investigations, which have not blamed auditors for the failures.Senator Richard Blumenthal called for substantial reform to the audit industry, citing “willful blindness” by KPMG and a failure to protect the public. Though the Senate subcommittee's report is unlikely to spur immediate regulatory changes—especially given the political instability at the PCAOB—it proposed new oversight tools, including mandatory auditor rotation and a whistleblower office. The report also recommended making audit enforcement investigations public sooner, arguing that long delays leave investors unaware of potential problems. KPMG, meanwhile, noted it had improved its audit practices and achieved its best regulatory inspection in 15 years.KPMG Dismissed Red Flags at Regional Banks, Senate Review FindsA New York state judge dismissed two terrorism-related charges against Luigi Mangione, who remains accused of second-degree murder in the killing of health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mangione acted with the intent to intimidate health workers or influence government policy—criteria necessary for charges under the state's terrorism statute. While the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the crime, he clarified that not all non-traditional crimes qualify as terrorism.Mangione, 27, still faces nine other charges in the state case, including multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon and a charge for possessing false identification. He has also been indicted federally, where the U.S. Justice Department is seeking the death penalty. The state court's decision does not impact the federal terrorism case, which remains active. Thompson, a former CEO at UnitedHealthcare, was shot outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel in December 2024 during a company event.The case has drawn national attention, particularly as concerns grow over politically motivated violence following the recent killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Public reaction to Mangione has been sharply divided, with some viewing him as a vigilante figure amid frustration with rising healthcare costs. Supporters even rallied outside the courthouse, holding signs and wearing themed attire. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and no trial dates have been scheduled.Luigi Mangione wins dismissal of terrorism counts in US insurance executive's killing | ReutersSeveral major U.S. law firms that reached agreements with President Donald Trump earlier this year are now representing clients in lawsuits against his administration, despite concerns that the deals would deter such actions. At least four of the nine firms that made arrangements with the White House—Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Skadden Arps, and Milbank—have since taken on cases involving challenges to Trump-era policies on immigration, transgender rights, tariffs, and environmental regulations.The firms' deals with the Trump administration, reached in March and April, came in response to executive orders targeting firms seen as opposing the president's agenda or promoting diversity policies he opposed. As part of the agreements, the firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work for causes aligned with the administration. Critics feared the arrangements would chill dissent and limit the firms' independence, but court records show several firms continued to litigate against the government.Legal experts suggest these firms are balancing risk with professional obligations, especially in high-profile cases involving long-standing clients or influential attorneys. For example, Latham represents Danish energy company Orsted in a lawsuit over a halted wind project, and Willkie is defending Virginia school districts in a transgender rights dispute. Milbank is involved in litigation over Trump's tariff powers and sanctuary city policies, led by prominent attorneys Neal Katyal and Gurbir Grewal. Skadden has partnered with a nonprofit to represent an immigrant woman denied a special visa.Four firms successfully challenged the legality of Trump's executive orders in court, with rulings finding they violated First Amendment protections. The administration has appealed. Meanwhile, Reuters has reported that other top firms have reduced pro bono and diversity initiatives, cautious of possible political retaliation.Some law firms that cut deals with Trump take cases opposing his administration | ReutersTesla has reached a confidential settlement with the family of Jovani Maldonado, a teenager killed in a 2019 crash involving a Tesla Model 3 operating on Autopilot. The case, which was set to go to trial next month in Alameda County, adds to a string of fatal crash lawsuits the company has quietly resolved to avoid jury trials. The Maldonados alleged that Tesla's driver-assistance system failed to detect slowing traffic and that the car struck their Ford Explorer at 70 mph, ejecting and killing 15-year-old Jovani. According to the lawsuit, the Tesla driver had no hands on the wheel at the time of impact, and the family claimed Tesla misled the public about the safety and capabilities of its Autopilot technology.Although Tesla argued the technology worked as designed and blamed the driver, it continues to settle similar cases even after Elon Musk publicly stated in 2019 that he opposed settling “unjust” lawsuits. The company has also recently settled other high-profile fatal crash suits, including ones involving distracted drivers and cases with alcohol-related elements.These legal battles come as Tesla faces mounting scrutiny over Autopilot and its marketing practices. The California DMV is pursuing an administrative complaint accusing Tesla of exaggerating its software's capabilities, with a ruling still pending. Tesla has three more fatal Autopilot crash trials scheduled in the next six months, including one in Houston involving injured police officers.Tesla Settles Another Fatal Crash Suit Ahead of Jury Trial (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's a pivotal moment in the Luigi Mancione case. Today's court hearing could shape the future of the trial — and the stakes couldn't be higher. Join Scott Reisch and the Crime Talk team as we break down the latest developments, the legal strategies in play, and what this means moving forward. Stay tuned for expert legal analysis you won't find anywhere else. #LuigiMancione, #CourtHearing, #TrueCrime, #CrimeTalk, #Justice, #LegalNews

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration's ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk's company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk's rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk's company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway's recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn't need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what's administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway's fiscal cushion, yet we've persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we're really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don't sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we'll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters 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 discusses the assassination of Charlie Kirk by yet another deranged leftist shooter. As disturbing as the shooting was, the celebrations from the left — which included professionals, teacher and health care providers — were even more troubling. Jeff discusses what needs to come next if we are to avoid sliding into the abyss as a country.

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg Laws EnactedOn this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws, codifying one of the most infamous legal frameworks of racial discrimination and hate in modern history. Announced at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, these laws included the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, the Reich Citizenship Law, and later, the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People. Together, they stripped Jews of German citizenship, prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans,” and laid the groundwork for systematic persecution.The Reich Citizenship Law divided citizens into two classes: full citizens, who were of "German or related blood," and subjects, who were denied full political rights. Jews were relegated to the latter category. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor banned intermarriage and extramarital relations between Jews and Germans, criminalizing personal relationships based on ancestry. Violators could be imprisoned or sent to concentration camps.To enforce these laws, the Nazi regime devised elaborate charts and pseudoscientific metrics to assess Jewish ancestry, culminating in a 1936 chart issued by the Reich Health Office. This visual aid defined citizens by the number of Jewish grandparents they had, assigning labels like Mischling (mixed race) to those with partial Jewish heritage. Even one Jewish grandparent could strip a person of civil rights.The Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People added a eugenic dimension, requiring couples to undergo genetic testing before marriage and barring those deemed "genetically unfit" from reproducing. These legal measures normalized state-sponsored racism and laid a legal foundation for the Holocaust.Big Law firm Perkins Coie terminated an attorney over a social media post that appeared to criticize conservative figure Charlie Kirk following his shooting death. The firm stated the post did not align with its values and that the lawyer's conduct fell significantly below professional expectations. The firing was made effective immediately. Kirk, 31, served as executive director of Turning Point USA and was a prominent supporter of Donald Trump. He was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Perkins Coie has a history of political entanglements, notably becoming one of the first law firms to sue Trump after his executive orders targeted firms representing political adversaries. These orders reportedly restricted access to federal facilities, revoked security clearances, and jeopardized client contracts. The firm was a particular focus for Trump due to its work during Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, including hiring Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Trump's campaign and the Russian government.Perkins Coie Fires Attorney Over Social Media Post on Kirk ShootingU.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly extended a temporary block on the deportation of unaccompanied Guatemalan children with active immigration cases. The move halts a Trump-era effort that attempted to deport 76 minors without proper notice or legal process, including waking children in the early hours of August 31 to board planes. The judge's ruling followed a contentious September 10 hearing, where he criticized a Justice Department attorney for falsely claiming that all the children's parents had requested their return. A report from the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office later revealed that most parents couldn't be located, and many of those found did not want their children repatriated.The children in question mostly come from Guatemala's Indigenous, rural regions—Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quiché, and Alta Verapaz—areas known for high poverty and malnutrition. Guatemalan officials emphasized that such a large-scale repatriation request was unprecedented. Some families reportedly mortgaged their homes to finance the children's migration, indicating the high stakes involved.US judge extends block on deportations of unaccompanied Guatemalan migrant children | ReutersU.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully directed the mass firing of around 25,000 federal probationary employees earlier this year. These workers, many of whom had served in their roles for less than a year, were dismissed under a directive from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in February. The mass terminations sparked lawsuits from unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington, arguing the firings lacked legal justification.Judge Alsup found that the OPM's directive was unlawful and "pretextual," noting the terminations were falsely framed as performance-related. While he acknowledged that the workers had been harmed, he declined to order their reinstatement, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting judicial power over executive branch hiring and firing decisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court had previously paused a preliminary injunction in April that would have reinstated 17,000 employees.Despite not ordering reinstatement, Alsup mandated that 19 federal agencies, including Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Treasury, correct the employment records of affected workers by November 14. He also prohibited agencies from continuing to follow OPM's original directive. Union leaders praised the decision for confirming the firings were baseless and for requiring agencies to acknowledge the false rationale behind the terminations.Trump administration unlawfully directed mass US worker terminations, judge rules | ReutersThe University of California, Berkeley confirmed it had shared information on 160 students, faculty, and staff with the Trump administration, in response to a federal investigation into alleged antisemitism. The data was provided to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights as part of an ongoing probe linked to pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The university stated that it acted under legal obligation while striving to protect individual privacy and notified those affected.This move comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to penalize universities accused of allowing antisemitic behavior, particularly during recent demonstrations opposing Israel's actions in Gaza. Critics argue that the administration is conflating political protest and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, raising serious concerns about free speech, academic freedom, and due process.Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to institutions involved in such protests and attempted to deport foreign student demonstrators, though those efforts have faced legal challenges. The administration has already reached high-profile settlements with Columbia and Brown universities and is in ongoing talks with Harvard. A proposed $1 billion settlement with UCLA was publicly rejected by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called it extortion.UC Berkeley shares information on dozens of students, staff with Trump administration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to BrownOn September 12, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, firmly rejecting a challenge by the State of Arkansas to the enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education. In the wake of Brown, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, Arkansas officials sought to delay desegregation efforts in Little Rock, citing violent resistance and the need to preserve public order. The state's governor and legislature argued they were not bound by the Court's ruling.The Supreme Court rejected that claim unequivocally. In a rare decision signed by all nine justices, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding nature of its interpretations. It stated that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that the Court's rulings are final and must be followed by all states, regardless of political disagreement or local unrest.The ruling was a direct rebuke to Governor Orval Faubus, who had used the Arkansas National Guard to block the entry of nine Black students into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. President Eisenhower had responded by sending federal troops to enforce the desegregation order. Cooper v. Aaron underscored the federal judiciary's power to enforce constitutional rights, even in the face of open defiance by state authorities.The Court's opinion in Cooper was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, signaling that federal law could not be nullified by state action. It also clarified that resistance to judicial decisions, especially on constitutional matters, was itself unconstitutional. By reasserting its own authority and that of the federal government, the Court helped ensure that desegregation would proceed, however slowly, across the South.Senate Republicans pushed through a rule change aimed at speeding up the confirmation of President Donald Trump's executive-branch nominees. In a 53-45 vote, the GOP majority limited the ability of Senate Democrats to slow the process, allowing groups of nominees to be confirmed together rather than individually. The change does not apply to Cabinet heads or federal judges.Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the move, saying the chamber was being bogged down by procedural delays. In contrast, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff warned the rule change weakens institutional checks on presidential power, calling it a further erosion of Senate independence. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized it as enabling a “conveyor belt of unqualified nominees.”This is the third significant alteration in 12 years to Senate rules that weaken the minority party's influence, a trend that began with Democrats in 2013 and continued under Republicans in 2017. Critics argue the Senate is drifting away from its traditional role as a stabilizing body in the legislative process. The first group of Trump nominees could see expedited confirmation as early as next week. Stephen Miran's Federal Reserve nomination will proceed under the prior rules.US Senate loosens rule to speed confirmation of some Trump nominees | ReutersA federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that would have barred undocumented children from enrolling in Head Start, a federal preschool program for low-income families. Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked the authority to impose immigration-based restrictions on access to Head Start, criticizing the agency for failing to follow proper rulemaking procedures.The decision followed a similar ruling one day earlier from a federal judge in Rhode Island, which halted the policy in 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The Seattle lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with two parent advocacy groups. They challenged a July directive that expanded the interpretation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start among programs limited to legal residents.Since 1998, HHS had interpreted the law as not applying to non-postsecondary education programs like Head Start. Judge Martinez stated that Congress had effectively endorsed that interpretation by not altering the law and had even broadened access to Head Start over time. Despite recent limits by the U.S. Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions, Martinez justified his decision as necessary to provide uniform relief.Trump policy barring migrants from Head Start blocked nationwide | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, accusing the company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against riders with disabilities. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint alleges that Uber drivers have routinely denied rides to passengers who use service animals or wheelchairs, and sometimes insulted or mistreated them.The DOJ claims that Uber also imposed illegal fees on disabled riders, including cleaning charges for service animals and cancellation fees for rides that drivers refused to complete. The lawsuit details incidents involving 17 individuals, such as a 7-year-old amputee denied a ride due to his wheelchair, a veteran with a service dog who missed a flight after being refused service, and a blind man in New Jersey whose ride requests were repeatedly canceled.The government is seeking an injunction to stop further violations, mandatory improvements to Uber's policies and training, monetary damages for those affected, and a civil penalty. In response, Uber denied the allegations, stating it has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and is committed to accessibility and inclusion for riders with disabilities.US sues Uber, alleges discrimination against disabled riders | ReutersWe'll see you back here on Monday and, until then, note. We like to close out the week of shows with a featured musical piece. That will make these Friday episodes seem especially long. We hope you'll stick it out and enjoy the featured piece but, if music – specifically classical music – isn't your bag, we get it. Our mouth sounds unrelated to the week's closing music ends here.This week's closing theme is by Clara Schumann.This week's closing music features a brilliant piece by Clara Schumann, a composer, pianist, and musical force whose work was often overshadowed by the men around her—most notably her husband Robert Schumann and close friend Johannes Brahms. Yet Clara was a prodigy in her own right, performing across Europe and composing with a clarity and emotional depth that demanded attention in a male-dominated 19th-century musical world.Her Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, written in 1845, is a striking example of her compositional voice—bold, technically challenging, and emotionally complex. The piece opens with stormy, rapid-fire passages that give way to more lyrical interludes, showcasing Clara's mastery of contrast and dramatic pacing. It's music that demands virtuosity but also rewards listeners with its structural elegance and passionate energy.As you listen, consider how Clara's work stood alongside—and at times surpassed—that of her more famous peers. Her Scherzo No. 2 is not just a curiosity from a historical figure, but a work of enduring artistic merit that more than earns its place in the canon.Without further ado, Clara Schumann's Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, 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: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government's posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump's second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC's duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration's brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | 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: Sewing Machine PatentOn this day in legal history, September 10, 1846, Elias Howe was granted U.S. Patent No. 3640 for his invention of the lockstitch sewing machine. Though not the first to envision mechanical sewing, Howe's design was the first to successfully automate stitching in a way that was both efficient and commercially viable. His machine used a needle with the eye at the point and a shuttle beneath the cloth to form a lockstitch—features that would become industry standards. Despite the innovation, Howe initially struggled to find financial backers and spent time in England attempting to sell his invention, with little success.When he returned to the United States, Howe discovered that other manufacturers had begun producing similar machines. Chief among them was Isaac Singer, who had developed and begun marketing a sewing machine that closely mirrored Howe's patented design. In 1854, Howe sued Singer for patent infringement, launching one of the first high-profile intellectual property battles in American history. The case turned on whether Singer's improvements to the machine still relied on Howe's patented mechanism.The court ultimately ruled in Howe's favor, affirming that Singer's use of the lockstitch principle did indeed infringe upon Howe's patent. Howe was awarded substantial royalties from Singer and other manufacturers using similar technology, securing both recognition and financial reward for his invention. This case set a foundational precedent for the enforceability of patent rights and underscored the economic stakes of intellectual property in the Industrial Age. By the time his patent expired, Howe had amassed a considerable fortune and had firmly established the legal and commercial viability of inventorship in a rapidly mechanizing society.A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking an early legal defeat for the administration in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the Fed's independence. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration's justification—allegations of mortgage fraud committed before Cook took office—did not clearly meet the legal standard for removal. The law governing the Federal Reserve allows governors to be removed only “for cause,” a term not explicitly defined, and this is the first time its limits are being tested in court.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has denied all fraud allegations and is suing both Trump and the Fed, arguing the move is politically motivated due to her monetary policy views. Her legal team argues that even if the mortgage claims were accurate, they predate her Senate confirmation and therefore do not constitute grounds for removal. The White House contends that the president has broad authority to dismiss Fed governors and that this issue should not be subject to judicial review.Judge Cobb's ruling allows Cook to remain in her position while the case proceeds and emphasized that the claims did not pertain to her conduct as a sitting Board member. The Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe into the mortgage allegations, issuing subpoenas from Georgia and Michigan. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and may redefine limits on presidential power over the central bank. Legal experts and Fed supporters view the ruling as a significant moment in affirming the institution's independence from political interference.US judge temporarily blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Cook | ReutersTrump Can't Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for Now, Judge Says (1)The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the review of the legality of President Trump's global tariff policies, setting up a pivotal case over the limits of presidential power in trade. The Court will evaluate whether Trump unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law traditionally applied to sanction foreign adversaries—to justify tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries over issues like drug trafficking. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped, arguing that IEEPA doesn't grant presidents broad tariff authority and that such actions violate the Constitution's assignment of trade powers to Congress.The Justice Department, appealing the rulings, claims that stripping Trump of this power would weaken the country's defenses against economic threats. In contrast, the challengers—including small businesses, a toy company, and 12 Democrat-led states—argue that only Congress can impose tariffs and that Trump's interpretation of the law is too expansive. The case invokes the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of large economic and political consequence.Oral arguments are scheduled for early November, with the Court moving unusually quickly to address the matter. Tariffs remain in place during the legal process. The decision could reshape the scope of executive authority over trade policy and have long-term effects on global markets, U.S. trade relationships, and the national economy. With trillions of dollars in duties at stake, the outcome may also impact future uses of emergency economic powers by presidents.US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has mostly upheld a California law aimed at limiting social media use by minors, siding with the state over a legal challenge brought by tech industry group NetChoice. The law, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits platforms from offering so-called "addictive feeds" to users under 18 without parental consent. These feeds, powered by algorithms that tailor content to user behavior, are considered by lawmakers to pose mental health risks to children.NetChoice, whose members include major tech firms like Google, Meta, Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter), argued that the law is overly vague, unconstitutional, and violates companies' First Amendment rights. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of these claims, saying the law's applications were not broadly unconstitutional and that the issue of algorithmic expression is fact-dependent.The court did strike down one provision requiring platforms to default children's accounts to hide likes and comments, finding it was not the least restrictive means of protecting mental health. It also declined to rule on a requirement that platforms verify users' ages, since that part of the law doesn't take effect until 2027.NetChoice expressed disappointment, saying the ruling gives government more control over online speech than parents. The court returned parts of the case to a lower court for further review. The decision represents a significant legal validation of California's attempt to regulate how minors interact with digital platforms.California limits on 'addictive' social media feeds for children largely upheld | ReutersA federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender minors who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled that the Department of Justice's subpoena was issued in bad faith, stating its true purpose was to intimidate and interfere with Massachusetts' legal protections for gender-affirming care. The subpoena sought a wide range of sensitive data, including identifiable patient records from the past five and a half years.The DOJ claimed the records were needed to investigate possible healthcare fraud and off-label drug promotion, but the judge found that the scope of the request far exceeded what would be relevant for such an inquiry. Joun pointed to the administration's broader political stance against gender-affirming care, including President Trump's executive order just days after taking office and the DOJ's public commitment to targeting providers of what it called “radical gender experimentation.”Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in July that over 20 subpoenas had been issued nationwide to clinics treating transgender youth, seeking not only institutional practices but also personal patient data related to puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Boston Children's Hospital challenged the subpoena, arguing it was a violation of patient privacy and state protections. Judge Joun agreed, emphasizing that Massachusetts' constitution safeguards access to gender-affirming care and that the subpoena amounted to harassment under the guise of a legal investigation.Judge blocks Trump administration's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital 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. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes 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: Ford Grants Nixon PardonOn September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office, specifically those related to the Watergate scandal. The announcement came just one month after Nixon resigned in disgrace, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Ford, who had only recently assumed the presidency, delivered the pardon via a televised address, explaining that he hoped to heal the nation's wounds and end the "long national nightmare." The decision was met with swift and widespread controversy.Critics accused Ford of striking a backroom deal with Nixon—trading the presidency for a guarantee of legal immunity. The move damaged Ford's credibility and likely contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. Supporters, however, argued that the pardon was necessary to move the country forward and prevent a divisive, prolonged legal spectacle. Legally, the pardon was grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad clemency powers for federal offenses. Importantly, Nixon had not been formally charged at the time of the pardon, making it a preemptive act.The pardon set a precedent for the scope of presidential pardon powers, later cited in legal arguments involving other controversial figures. It also fueled lasting debates about executive accountability and the limits of legal immunity for high-ranking officials. Public opinion at the time was largely against the decision, but historical reassessment has yielded more nuanced views. Ford later received the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for the pardon, which some historians came to see as a politically costly but morally principled decision. The moment remains a defining one in the legal and political legacy of both Nixon and Ford.Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, argued in a court filing that federal prosecutors unfairly prejudiced potential jurors by linking him to a separate mass shooting. Prosecutors had previously claimed Mangione inspired Shane Tamura, who killed four people and himself at the offices of Blackstone and the NFL. Mangione's attorneys countered that there is no evidence Tamura was influenced by either Mangione or his anti-health-insurance-industry writings. They accused the government of deliberately trying to bias jurors and undermine Mangione's right to a fair trial.The government cited Tamura in response to Mangione's request for more details on what prosecutors might argue during a potential capital sentencing phase. Prosecutors claimed that Mangione's alleged ability to inspire vigilante violence demonstrates his dangerousness and supports their pursuit of the death penalty. However, Mangione rejected any link to Tamura and called the connection politically motivated. His legal team reiterated its demand for more information on the government's death penalty theory. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will determine whether the prosecution must share additional details at this stage.Luigi Mangione Says Linking Him to Blackstone Killer Biases JuryThe Trump administration has announced plans to deport Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case, to Eswatini, a country in southern Africa with which he has no ties. Abrego is currently detained in Virginia and previously faced deportation to Uganda, but the destination was changed after he claimed fear of persecution there. A Department of Homeland Security official dismissed his claims, citing that he has alleged fear of persecution in over 20 countries.Abrego was initially deported to El Salvador in March despite a court order blocking the move, prompting criticism of the administration's handling of his case. He was later returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue that the prosecution is retaliatory and aimed at coercing a guilty plea. They also revealed that the government offered to send him to Costa Rica if he accepted a plea deal, or to Uganda if he refused.Abrego, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and children, has become a symbol in the broader debate over immigration enforcement. The administration previously used deportation flights to Eswatini for people labeled too dangerous for their home countries to accept, raising further concerns about Abrego's treatment.Trump administration says migrant Abrego could be deported to Eswatini | ReutersThe Trump administration has officially ended its legal defense of a rule, created under President Biden, that banned employee noncompete agreements. These agreements prevent workers from joining competing businesses or starting their own in the same industry. On Friday, the Justice Department moved to dismiss two appeals in federal courts that challenged rulings striking down the 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule. The decision was widely expected after Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a critic of the rule, indicated earlier this year that the agency was reviewing its legality.The dropped appeals mean courts will not rule on whether the FTC has the authority to implement broad nationwide bans under its antitrust mandate. The original FTC rule had cited evidence that over 20% of U.S. workers are bound by noncompete clauses, which it argued restrict worker mobility and depress wages. However, Ferguson and other Republicans maintain that the FTC lacks the rulemaking power to impose such sweeping bans.The legal challenges were brought by a marketing firm, a real estate developer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups. During Trump's first term, his administration held that although some noncompete clauses might be illegal, the agreements as a whole were not. Meanwhile, the FTC announced a new enforcement action against a major pet cremation company, accusing it of using unlawful noncompetes, including for low-wage workers.Trump administration drops defense of ban on employee 'noncompete' agreements | ReutersThe Trump administration is preparing backup plans to continue imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rejects its current legal basis for doing so. After losing in lower courts, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s national security law that appellate judges ruled does not authorize tariffs. In the meantime, White House officials have been quietly exploring other legal tools for months, anticipating potential judicial pushback.Two key alternatives under consideration are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 allows the president to raise tariffs if certain imports are found to threaten national security—many of Trump's existing tariffs fall under this provision and wouldn't be directly affected by the IEEPA ruling. Section 301 permits the U.S. trade representative, under presidential direction, to take action in response to unfair trade practices. However, neither law offers the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided, and each comes with legal and logistical hurdles.Trump's legal team and advisers remain confident that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three of his appointees, might still side with him. But regardless of the legal outcome, the administration is determined to maintain a public and political case for Trump's tariff powers, framing them as essential to national security and foreign policy goals. These legal uncertainties are complicating U.S. trade negotiations, as foreign governments remain cautious and unconvinced that the court case will significantly shift the U.S. position.The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down 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 week, we cover Google's latest courtroom headaches, the evolution of KPIs in gaming analytics, and the incoming Call of Duty live-action movie. We unpack Rec Room's layoffs, compare Roblox vs Rec Room head-to-head, and dig into Microsoft's IP bets from Perfect Dark to Halo. Plus, we debate Star Wars: The Old Republic, break down Roblox's latest monetization trends, and ask what the rise of real-money gaming in India means for the global market.00:00 Introduction and Hosts' Banter02:38 Upcoming Gaming News Highlights03:35 Cress's Personal Update05:39 Phil's Podcast Review07:16 Debate on Star Wars: The Old Republic10:32 Google's Legal News and Impact12:58 New KPIs in Gaming Analytics20:19 Call of Duty Live Action Movie Discussion29:15 Google Play's New Public Profiles31:15 Rec Room Layoffs and Analysis34:05 Capital Deployment and Venture Capital Concerns34:47 Roblox vs. Rec Room: A Comparison38:12 Perfect Dark and Microsoft's IP Strategy39:11 Halo and Hell Divers Collaboration44:29 Destiny Rising and the Mobile Shooter Market55:26 Roblox's Monetization and UGC Trends01:03:57 Real Money Gaming in India01:07:00 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This Day in Legal History: First Continental CongressOn September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, marking a critical early step toward American independence. Delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies—Georgia being the sole exception—gathered at Carpenters' Hall to coordinate a colonial response to the "Intolerable Acts," a series of punitive measures imposed by the British Parliament in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. These acts, which included the Boston Port Act and the Massachusetts Government Act, were seen by the colonists as severe violations of their rights as Englishmen.The Congress brought together influential figures such as George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Jay. Though the colonies had differing interests and levels of loyalty to the Crown, the delegates united in their desire to assert colonial rights through collective action. They adopted the Suffolk Resolves, endorsed a boycott of British goods through the Continental Association, and agreed to reconvene the following year if their grievances were not addressed.Rather than immediately pushing for independence, the First Continental Congress aimed to restore harmony with Britain while defending colonial autonomy. It drafted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, emphasizing allegiance to the Crown but rejecting parliamentary authority over the colonies in matters of internal governance.This Congress laid the groundwork for future intercolonial cooperation and demonstrated that the colonies could act in concert. Its organizational structure, with committees and formal resolutions, prefigured the eventual legislative model adopted under the U.S. Constitution. While King George III and Parliament ultimately ignored the Congress's petitions, the gathering significantly escalated the political crisis that would lead to the American Revolutionary War.Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said this week that, despite political polarization and President Trump's aggressive use of executive power, the U.S. is not experiencing a constitutional crisis. Whew! Speaking at New York's Lincoln Center while promoting her new book, Listening to the Law, Barrett emphasized that the Constitution is “alive and well,” and that American institutions—particularly the courts—are still functioning effectively. Her remarks come amid widespread concern over Trump's second-term policies, including sweeping immigration crackdowns, tariff impositions, and rollbacks of diversity programs, many of which have been challenged in court.Federal judges have repeatedly halted or delayed Trump's initiatives, leading to sharp criticism from the president. Earlier this year, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge, raising alarms among legal scholars. Despite these tensions, Barrett asserted that a real constitutional crisis would require the collapse of the rule of law—something she doesn't see happening.Barrett also defended her controversial vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, arguing that Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be influenced by shifting public opinion. While support for abortion rights has grown in recent years, Barrett stood by the Court's direction, which has taken a decisively conservative turn since her appointment in 2020. Her comments signal confidence in the judiciary's resilience during politically charged times.Supreme Court's Barrett says US not in constitutional crisis | ReutersU.S. prosecutors are aggressively charging individuals in Washington, D.C. with assaulting or resisting federal officers under a new DOJ-led law enforcement push, but the initiative is drawing scrutiny due to its stark contrast with President Trump's earlier decision to dismiss or pardon many January 6-related assault charges. A Bloomberg Law review found at least 20 new federal cases that closely resemble charges from the Capitol riot—charges that Trump has largely wiped away. Critics argue that this inconsistency undermines prosecutorial credibility and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department.Some judges and grand juries have echoed that skepticism. In one case, a magistrate judge cited the Jan. 6 clemencies in deciding not to detain a man charged with threatening a National Guard member. Prosecutors have also struggled to secure felony indictments, including in a case where a former DOJ employee was accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. These outcomes point to juror reluctance in cases they may view as politically selective.U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is leading the local effort and has acknowledged the difficulty of securing convictions. Some cases involve more serious allegations—kicking, hitting, or spitting on officers—while others stem from lower-level confrontations, including a disputed video involving immigration agents.Meanwhile, defendants and defense attorneys are raising claims of selective prosecution, citing the dismissal of hundreds of Jan. 6 assault cases still pending when Trump returned to office. One high-profile example involves Rep. LaMonica McIver, whose lawyers argue her case—stemming from a confrontation with immigration officers—is being pursued for political reasons. Prosecutors have already been forced to downgrade multiple cases from felonies to misdemeanors due to lack of support from grand juries.DOJ Crime Crackdown Clashes With Jan. 6 Cases Trump ForgaveA federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that would have restricted President Trump's use of military troops for immigration enforcement and crowd control in Los Angeles. The move preserves Trump's authority to use active-duty military and National Guard personnel in support of federal agents while the case is under appeal. The original ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, found that the administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a law dating back to the 1800s that limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement.Breyer's decision, which would have barred military personnel from performing police functions in California, was scheduled to take effect on September 12 but is now on hold as the 9th Circuit reviews the appeal. The legal fight stems from Trump's June deployment of over 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles during protests over federal immigration policies. Though most of the protests have since calmed, around 300 National Guard troops remain on the ground, supporting immigration and drug enforcement operations.Critics argue that Trump's use of the military in civilian law enforcement roles marks a dangerous shift in executive power. The same day the 9th Circuit paused Breyer's ruling, Washington, D.C.'s attorney general filed a lawsuit challenging similar military deployments in the capital. Trump has also signaled interest in expanding military involvement to other cities like Chicago and New Orleans.US appeals court pauses restrictions on Trump's use of troops in Los Angeles | ReutersGoogle has been hit with a $425 million jury verdict in a major privacy class action, after a last-minute law firm switch brought Cooley LLP into the case. Originally led by Willkie Farr, the defense team—headed by partners Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci—jumped to Cooley in June, just weeks before trial. Cooley took over the multibillion-dollar case and brought in additional lawyers to assist. The abrupt law firm change followed internal dissent at Willkie over a controversial agreement with the Trump administration requiring pro bono work aligned with White House directives.The case centered on allegations that Google collected data from nearly 100 million users despite their account settings indicating they wanted to keep their information private. After a two-week trial in San Francisco, the jury sided with the plaintiffs, led by prominent attorneys from Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey. While the plaintiffs had sought $31 billion, the jury awarded just over 1% of that amount.Google said it will appeal, claiming the jury misunderstood how its privacy settings function. The plaintiffs' legal team, however, called the verdict a clear message about unauthorized data collection. The firms behind the case have brought similar lawsuits, including one over Google's Chrome “Incognito” mode, which resulted in a settlement earlier this year that forced the company to destroy billions of data records.Google trial ends with $425 million verdict after Cooley inherits privacy case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Amy Beach.This week's closing theme features the elegant and expressive piano miniatures of Beach, one of the most important American composers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A prodigy and largely self-taught composer, Beach broke barriers as the first American woman to write a symphony performed by a major orchestra and became a central figure in the Boston musical scene. Her works span symphonic, choral, chamber, and solo piano music, all marked by lyrical intensity and harmonic richness.Composed in 1892, her Four Sketches, Op. 15 for solo piano offers a vivid, compact display of her early voice as a composer. Each short piece evokes a distinct atmosphere: In Autumn captures seasonal change with swirling colors; Phantoms conjures mysterious shadows; Dreaming drifts into quiet introspection; and Fireflies sparkles with quick, darting motion. Though brief, these character pieces are finely crafted, offering emotional depth and technical elegance.As our closing music, Beach's Sketches remind us how much can be said in miniature—and how, even in the restrictive musical culture of her time, she composed with clarity, beauty, and unmistakable individuality.Without further ado, Amy Beach's Four Sketches, Op. 15 – 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: Little Rock NineOn September 4, 1957, a constitutional crisis unfolded in Little Rock, Arkansas, when Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block nine Black students—known as the “Little Rock Nine”—from entering Central High School. This came after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Faubus claimed the move was to prevent violence, but it was widely seen as defiance of federal desegregation orders.The legal showdown intensified the struggle between federal authority and states' rights. On September 4, the students arrived at Central High and were turned away by National Guard troops, prompting national outrage and escalating tensions over civil rights. In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court, and on September 20, a federal judge ordered Faubus to remove the troops.The confrontation culminated later that month when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, sent in federal troops from the 101st Airborne Division to enforce integration and protect the students. This marked one of the first times since Reconstruction that the federal government used military force to uphold civil rights rulings.This day is remembered as a pivotal moment in civil rights legal history, illustrating the federal judiciary's growing role in dismantling racial segregation and enforcing constitutional rights in the face of state resistance.President Trump's administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to urgently review a case challenging his use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. The request comes after a federal appeals court ruled on August 29 that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law historically used to sanction enemies or freeze assets, not to impose tariffs. Trump had used IEEPA earlier this year to justify tariffs targeting trade deficits and drug trafficking from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico.In the appeal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the stakes, arguing that blocking the tariffs could endanger national security and economic stability. The administration asked the Court to decide by September 10 whether it will hear the case, hoping for arguments to be scheduled in November.Small businesses and a coalition of 12 Democrat-led states sued to block the tariffs, arguing that only Congress can impose them. The appeals court agreed, stating that IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs and warning against giving the president unchecked economic powers. The ruling also cited the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive authority unless clearly granted by Congress in matters of broad economic or political importance.The Trump administration argues that these tariffs are key tools for diplomacy and economic leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying the ruling undermines the president's ability to defend national interests. Other court decisions have similarly rejected Trump's tariff strategy, and at least eight related lawsuits are ongoing.Trump takes tariffs fight to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $2.2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University, marking a significant legal win for the school. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found the administration's actions violated Harvard's First Amendment rights, characterizing the move as ideologically motivated retaliation. The administration had claimed the funding cuts were due to Harvard's failure to adequately address antisemitism on campus, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard had tolerated hateful behavior for too long but said the administration used antisemitism as a “smokescreen” for political pressure. She barred the government from cutting current or future funding and emphasized that academic research must be protected from arbitrary government action. Harvard had argued the funding cuts came after it resisted demands to restructure governance and academic programs to fit the administration's ideological expectations.The Trump administration has targeted several Ivy League schools over similar issues, including Columbia University, which agreed in July to pay $220 million to restore lost research funding. Trump previously said he would not settle with Harvard for less than $500 million. The administration has also tried to bar international students from Harvard and challenged its accreditation.While Harvard President Alan Garber praised the ruling for affirming academic freedom, he did not comment on ongoing settlement talks. The university's faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which co-litigated the case, opposes any deal with the administration, arguing it would compromise the rights of the academic community.Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard's funding, US judge rules | ReutersHarvard $2 Billion Funding Freeze Found Illegal by US Judge (3)Newsmax has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News Network, accusing them of using their dominance in right-leaning cable news to suppress competition and block Newsmax's growth. Filed in West Palm Beach, Florida, the lawsuit alleges that Fox pressured TV distributors to exclude or limit Newsmax, stalling the smaller network's expansion in the pay-TV market for nearly a decade.Newsmax claims Fox's actions deprived conservative viewers of diverse news options and calls for monetary damages and a court order to stop the alleged anti-competitive practices. CEO Christopher Ruddy stated the lawsuit aims to restore market fairness and consumer choice. Fox, in response, dismissed the suit as an attempt to mask Newsmax's market struggles, calling it headline-chasing.Founded in 1998, Newsmax entered the pay-TV space in 2014 and went public earlier in 2025. The company asserts its programming offers a non-establishment alternative to Fox and claims it now reaches over 40 million Americans. It also noted a ratings boost surrounding the 2020 election.This legal action follows Newsmax's recent $67 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election, and a previous confidential settlement with Smartmatic. Fox also settled with Dominion in 2023 for $787.5 million. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.Newsmax sues Fox, claiming TV distribution deals strangled business | ReutersNewsmax Sues Fox News Claiming Conservative TV News Monopoly (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Frederick Douglass Escapes SlaveryOn this day in legal history, September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, setting in motion a life that would fundamentally reshape American legal and political thought. Disguised as a free Black sailor, Douglass boarded a train in Baltimore and made his way north to freedom, ultimately arriving in New York City. His flight from bondage was not just a personal liberation—it was a direct challenge to the legal regime of American slavery, upheld at the time by both state laws and federal statutes such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Douglass's successful escape, aided by forged documents and the relative leniency of northern vigilance at the time, highlights the tension between laws protecting property in human beings and the moral and constitutional arguments against such laws.Once free, Douglass became one of the most powerful legal thinkers of the 19th century, though he was never formally trained as a lawyer. Through his speeches, writings, and public advocacy, he shaped legal discourse on citizenship, equal protection, and constitutional interpretation. He directly influenced Reconstruction-era legal developments, including debates over the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. His 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” offered a searing legal and moral critique of the Constitution's complicity with slavery, while still asserting its potential as a freedom-promoting document when interpreted through a natural rights lens.Douglass's escape, and the career it made possible, also underscored the limits of law in the face of moral justice: in 1838, his very existence in the North was criminal under federal law. That reality would not change until the formal abolition of slavery in 1865. His advocacy helped lay the groundwork for a new legal order that could no longer reconcile itself with the ownership of people. September 3 is not just the anniversary of one man's flight—it marks a turning point in the long legal struggle to align American law with its professed ideals.President Donald Trump is prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his administration's use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs, including those targeting fentanyl and “reciprocal” trade imbalances. This follows two significant legal defeats, including a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president sweeping tariff authority. The court held that the statute, enacted in 1977, lacks any reference to tariffs among its regulatory tools, creating a serious challenge to the legal basis for Trump's actions.Despite the legal headwinds, Trump's team remains optimistic, noting the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and the Court's traditional deference in matters of foreign affairs. However, legal scholars suggest the case hinges on the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing executive action with major economic or political impact. This doctrine was previously used to strike down President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in 2023.Observers expect the Court to address whether IEEPA's silence on tariffs means such powers were never intended. If the Court rules against Trump, his administration is already eyeing fallback legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act, to keep tariffs in place. Meanwhile, nearly $66 billion in collected duties could be subject to refunds if importers challenge payments. A Supreme Court decision is likely by early 2026, with significant consequences for presidential trade powers.Trump to ask Supreme Court to save tariffs but faces tough legal questionsA U.S. federal judge ruled that Google can keep its Chrome browser and Android operating system, dealing a blow to antitrust enforcers who had hoped for more aggressive remedies. However, the judge ordered Google to begin sharing key search and advertising data with competitors in an effort to restore competition in online search. This decision follows a five-year legal battle in which Judge Amit Mehta previously found Google to be maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising. Despite that finding, Mehta declined to force structural changes like breaking up Google, citing recent advances in AI as creating new, organic competition.The ruling is a partial victory for Google and Apple, as it allows the two tech giants to continue their $20 billion annual deal that makes Google the default search engine on Apple devices. It also permits Google to maintain similar agreements with device makers like Samsung and Motorola, although exclusive contracts are now banned. Google stock jumped over 7% in after-hours trading following the decision.The court emphasized that AI companies like OpenAI are already better positioned to compete with Google than traditional search competitors have been in decades. The data-sharing order could benefit developers of AI-powered search tools and browsers, but the competitive impact may not be felt immediately. Google, while considering an appeal, expressed concerns that the order could undermine user privacy.The ruling is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Mehta's restrained approach may stand a better chance of surviving appeal. The case is part of a broader government crackdown on Big Tech, which includes ongoing legal battles involving Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple.Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust rulingThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a group of Venezuelans he alleged were members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In a 2–1 decision, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations, marking the first appellate ruling to directly address Trump's invocation of the centuries-old law through a March 14 presidential proclamation.Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick rejected the administration's claim that the gang's presence constituted a "predatory incursion" under the law, which only authorizes deportations during times of declared war or invasions. The court emphasized that neither condition was met. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined Southwick, while Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham dissented.The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, which had sought to use the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime measure—to conduct swift removals of alleged gang members without traditional due process. The Supreme Court had already intervened in May, halting removals on procedural grounds and criticizing the administration for providing only 24 hours' notice to detainees without clear instructions on how to contest deportation.The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelans, hailed the decision as a vital check on presidential power, warning against executive overreach during peacetime. Legal experts expect the issue to eventually return to the Supreme Court. The administration may first seek a rehearing from the full Fifth Circuit.US appeals court rejects Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansThe 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had declared the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional, upholding the long-standing prohibition on such weapons. The case centered on Tamori Morgan, a Kansas man charged with possessing a machine gun and a conversion device known as a "Glock switch." A federal judge in Wichita, appointed by President Donald Trump, had previously dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which required modern gun laws to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.The appeals court, however, found that Bruen did not dismantle the existing legal framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which protects weapons “in common use” for lawful self-defense. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Scott Matheson held that machine guns do not meet that standard and are primarily used for unlawful purposes, even if their usage is more widespread than official data suggests.Congress first regulated machine guns in 1934 and fully banned the possession of newly manufactured ones in 1986. The appellate ruling reinforces the idea that such weapons fall outside the Second Amendment's protections, despite recent expansions of individual gun rights. The court emphasized that even under Bruen, regulations do not require a perfect historical match—only a relevant analogue, which the machine gun ban has.US appeals court upholds machine gun ban, reversing trial judgeMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a hard look at the newly expanded federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) and asks whether it's really doing what it claims: reducing child poverty. On the surface, the policy looks like progress. The maximum credit is up to $2,200 and now indexed to inflation—something advocates have long called for. But dig into the mechanics, and a more troubling picture emerges.Despite the expansion, around 19 million children—28% of all kids in the U.S.—will remain ineligible for the full credit simply because their families don't earn enough. That's not a glitch; it's built into the law. The income phase-in structure means the poorest families, those most in need, get the least. In fact, a family of four has to make $41,500 to qualify for the full benefit—well above the federal poverty line of $32,150.This flawed design disproportionately affects Black, Latino, and Native American children, as well as kids in single-parent and rural households. And it's a bipartisan failure: Columbia University's data shows the exclusions cut across red and blue congressional districts almost evenly. That's part of what makes this so frustrating—lawmakers on both sides get to claim credit for “expanding” the CTC, even as millions of children continue to be left behind.Meanwhile, states are quietly filling the gap. Since the expiration of the more generous pandemic-era CTC in 2021, about a dozen states have implemented their own refundable credits. The results speak volumes. In Minnesota, for example, a $1,750 per-child credit is projected to lift 13,000 children out of poverty—nearly half the impact of the expanded federal credit in that state. Colorado and Vermont have seen similar success.The message here is that small, targeted, refundable state credits can work—and are working. Columbia's numbers prove that these policies are more than symbolic; they're helping real families. But that momentum could vanish if states assume Washington has solved the problem. The federal version may dominate headlines, but it's the state-level credits doing the actual heavy lifting.Tax policy doesn't usually offer much moral clarity, but this time it does. States have the tools to fight child poverty. The only real question is whether they'll use them—or wait around for Congress to deliver another “big, beautiful” fix that never arrives.Trump's New Child Tax Credit Deems Millions ‘Too Poor' to Qualify 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

Staying on top of recent decisions and legislation impacting estate planning, guardianships, and more is essential for elder law attorneys who advise clients and their families on wide-ranging matters. In Illinois, important 2025 developments include the One Big Beautiful Bill, limits to facility liability for negligence, attorney duties for mental capacity determinations, receipt of assets by minor family members, and more. Linda Strohschein and Paula Willuweit of Strohschein Law Group in St. Charles are presenting this year's caselaw and legislative update at the IICLE® Elder Law Short Course, which is at the Chicago Marriott Southwest and via live webcast on September 18 - 19, 2025. The annual reception hosted by the Illinois Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA-IL) is open to all in-person attendees at no additional cost.IICLE® is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in Springfield, Illinois. We produce a wide range of practice guidance for Illinois attorneys and other legal professionals in all areas of law with the generous contributions of time and expertise from volunteer attorneys, judges, and other legal professionals.

This Day in Legal History: George Wallace Calls out the Alabama National GuardOn September 2, 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace once again attempted to defy federal court orders mandating school integration, this time at Tuskegee High School. Just months after his infamous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to block Black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, Wallace ordered the Alabama National Guard to surround Tuskegee High in an effort to prevent the enrollment of thirteen Black students. The integration was ordered by a federal court in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a pivotal case that would eventually lead to sweeping desegregation across Alabama's public school system.Wallace's use of the state Guard was a direct challenge to federal authority and part of his broader campaign to maintain segregation under the banner of “states' rights.” In response, President John F. Kennedy swiftly invoked his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief and federalized the Alabama National Guard. Once under federal control, the troops were ordered to stand down and return to their barracks, removing the immediate threat of military-enforced segregation.The confrontation at Tuskegee High marked another flashpoint in the broader struggle between federal civil rights enforcement and Southern resistance. Wallace's actions highlighted the lengths to which segregationist officials would go to preserve Jim Crow, even in the face of binding federal court orders. The federal response signaled a growing willingness by the Kennedy administration to use executive power to enforce civil rights rulings on the ground. The Lee v. Macon litigation would go on to become one of the most significant desegregation cases in the post-Brown era, eventually placing all Alabama schools under court supervision. This incident at Tuskegee underscored both the volatility of the era and the legal system's central role in dismantling systemic segregation.Legal technology companies are facing increasing pressure to distinguish themselves from general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT and Claude, which continue to improve in accuracy, usability, and affordability. A recent MIT report highlighted a corporate lawyer who preferred using ChatGPT over a $50,000 specialized contract analysis tool, underlining the dilemma: why pay more for tools that may not perform better? While legal tech startups have attracted about $2.2 billion in investment since 2024—80% of it going to AI-focused ventures—they risk being outpaced unless they can offer superior user experience and domain-specific functionality.Specialized tools often rely on the same large foundation models that power general AI, making differentiation more difficult. However, legal tech firms argue their value lies not in the raw language models but in how they tailor those tools for legal workflows. For example, IP CoPilot identifies patentable ideas—a complex task not easily replicated by general AI. Some legal AI systems, such as Harvey (used by DLA Piper), have gained traction among attorneys, though many still favor ChatGPT.Studies comparing general and legal-specific tools show mixed results: while general models sometimes outperform on clarity or accuracy, niche tools often prove more valuable in daily legal work. Legal tech companies aim to stay ahead by integrating ethical compliance, user-centered design, and security into their offerings. Unlike general models, they can be customized to reflect a law firm's risk appetite or case strategy. Some legal AI tools also incorporate retrieval-augmented generation or are trained solely on legal data, increasing their relevance and precision.Legal Tech Battles to Set Itself Apart From General AI ModelsAs Congress returns from its August recess on September 2, lawmakers face an urgent deadline to fund the government before the current funding expires on September 30. Among the contentious issues is the fate of the IRS budget. House Republicans are pushing to cut $2.8 billion from the agency, particularly targeting funding for tax compliance and blocking resources for the IRS's Direct File tool, which allows free online tax filing. Democrats, meanwhile, are opposing the cuts, citing recent staff layoffs and the need to rebuild the agency's capacity. A temporary funding measure could delay decisions but would disrupt preparations for the next tax season.The Senate has yet to offer a formal counterproposal but has a history of softening House spending cuts, thanks in part to the chamber's 60-vote legislative threshold. Democrats are expected to advocate for continued funding, especially for auditing high-income taxpayers and improving customer service. IRS employees and their union are calling on Congress to fully fund the agency to strengthen enforcement and reduce the deficit.Complicating matters further, several leadership vacancies emerged over the summer, including the IRS chief and a top Treasury post. Nominations are moving slowly, with some being blocked by political disputes, such as over clean energy tax credits. At the same time, Republicans are already considering another tax bill, possibly to amend or expand provisions from the July tax law signed by President Trump. This includes industry-backed changes like increased deductions for pass-through entities and revisiting limits on gambling loss deductions. Expiring tax credits—such as ACA health insurance subsidies—could also trigger legislative action, particularly as midterm elections approach.IRS Funding on Tap as Congress Returns From Summer RecessU.S. District Judge Jia Cobb halted two Trump administration policies that sought to expand fast-track deportations across the country. These policies, enacted in January, allowed immigration authorities to deport non-citizens found anywhere in the U.S. without a court hearing if they couldn't prove two years of continuous residence. Traditionally, expedited removal applied only to migrants caught near the border shortly after entry, but the expansion would have affected millions more already living within the country.Judge Cobb ruled that this broadened approach violated the Fifth Amendment's due process protections, emphasizing that people who had settled in the U.S. had a stronger liberty interest in remaining and were entitled to more than a rushed removal process. She criticized the government for not adapting procedural safeguards for this larger and more established group of immigrants, calling the existing process “skimpy” and likely to result in wrongful deportations.The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy, claiming Trump had legal authority to enforce deportations. However, Cobb refused to delay her ruling pending appeal, effectively stopping the expanded deportation plan immediately. The lawsuit was brought by Make the Road New York, represented by the ACLU. Earlier in the month, Cobb had also blocked another Trump deportation policy targeting immigrants paroled into the U.S. under Biden's humanitarian programs.US judge halts Trump effort to expand fast-track deportations | ReutersA divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of President Trump's tariffs are illegal, significantly weakening a cornerstone of his second-term economic policy. The 7–4 decision found that Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which he used to justify new tariffs in April and February. The court emphasized that IEEPA does not grant the president explicit authority to impose taxes or tariffs, only to regulate or restrict imports during national emergencies.The ruling does not affect tariffs issued under other laws, such as those on steel and aluminum. However, it casts serious doubt on Trump's broader use of tariffs as leverage in foreign policy and trade negotiations. The decision stems from lawsuits brought by small businesses and Democratic-led states arguing that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, and that any delegation of this power must be narrowly defined.The appeals court allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 to give the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump criticized the decision as partisan but predicted a reversal. Experts believe the administration was anticipating the ruling and may try to shift its legal strategy. This case now sets the stage for a major Supreme Court confrontation, especially as Trump also challenges the Federal Reserve's independence.Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe