Podcasts about legalnews

In the 7 AM hour, Larry O’Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: GUEST: Joe diGenova on Latest Legal News LATEST LEGAL NEWS: Trump Legal Battles Update GUEST: Kevin Kline on Pearl Harbor's 84th Anniversary Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, December 8, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst, Former U.S. Attorney to the District of Columbia) on the Legal News of the Day BIO: DiGenova & Toensing Law Firm Profile RECENT APPEARANCE: DiGenova on Trump Legal Update Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, December 8, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: 21st Amendment RatifiedOn December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending the era of national Prohibition. This amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors since 1920. Prohibition, championed by temperance movements and moral reformers, was initially seen as a solution to social problems such as crime and poverty. However, over the following decade, it led instead to a surge in organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disregard for the law.The Twenty-first Amendment is unique in American legal history—it is the only amendment to repeal a previous amendment. It is also the only amendment ratified through state conventions rather than by state legislatures, a strategic move to bypass potential legislative gridlock. Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the three-fourths majority needed for adoption.The repeal of Prohibition returned control over alcohol regulation to the states, many of which continued restrictions at the local level. The amendment's passage marked a shift toward a more pragmatic and less moralistic approach to federal lawmaking. It also highlighted the limits of federal power to regulate personal behavior and underscored the complexities of enforcing unpopular laws.In the broader context of constitutional law, the Twenty-first Amendment demonstrated the capacity of the Constitution to adapt and self-correct. It remains a pivotal example of how constitutional amendments can respond to changing public sentiment and unintended legal consequences.A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., halting a lower court ruling that would have required the troops to withdraw by December 11. The temporary order from the D.C. Circuit Court does not address the underlying legality of the deployment but permits it to proceed while litigation continues. The deployment, which began in August, intensified after a November 26 shooting near the White House left two National Guard members injured—one fatally. Trump responded by sending 500 additional troops and renewing his call to halt immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” after a 29-year-old Afghan national was charged in the attack.D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the administration in September, arguing Trump unlawfully took over local policing authority and violated federal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. A federal judge initially sided with Schwalb, calling the deployment likely unlawful, but delayed enforcement of her ruling to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration maintains it can deploy troops to D.C. without local approval, citing the city's unique federal status. Meanwhile, similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities have sparked lawsuits and accusations that Trump is using federal force for political purposes. Lower courts have largely ruled against these moves, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the legality of the Chicago deployment soon.Appeals court allows Trump National Guard deployment in DC to continue | ReutersTom Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is fighting to sell his $3 million home in D.C.'s Wesley Heights to fund his defense against 22 financial crime charges, including tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that Goldstein, who has made millions as a poker player, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain loans, including one used to purchase the property. A Maryland federal judge barred the sale, ruling the house is likely connected to the alleged crimes. Goldstein has appealed, arguing that blocking the sale violates his Sixth Amendment right to use untainted assets for legal defense, and insists the home is not tied to the alleged misconduct.The appeal is before the 4th Circuit, where Goldstein—representing himself—says he's accumulated millions in legal fees. Prosecutors maintain the house is tainted because Goldstein omitted over $15 million in debt from the mortgage application. The home is also collateral for Goldstein's appearance bond, due to his being labeled a flight risk. One of Goldstein's key financial backers, litigation funder Parabellum Capital, is a witness in the case but not accused of wrongdoing. Legal experts say his effort to sell the house faces steep odds given the property's legal entanglements and standard federal practices regarding tainted assets.Tom Goldstein fights to sell home as tax trial looms | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, rejecting prosecutors' second attempt to bring criminal charges against her, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Justice Department had sought to revive a case involving allegations of bank fraud and false statements related to a mortgage, after the initial indictment was dismissed in November due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Despite the setback, prosecutors reportedly plan to seek a new indictment.James, a Democrat and prominent critic of Donald Trump, was accused of misrepresenting financial information to obtain favorable mortgage terms on a Virginia property. She pleaded not guilty to the original charges. The failed indictment effort comes amid broader DOJ efforts targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton—cases that have also faced legal hurdles.Grand jury rejections are rare, as prosecutors usually face a low threshold of probable cause to proceed. James is now the highest-profile figure to have such a case rejected during Trump's second term. The president has publicly attacked James for leading a civil fraud lawsuit against him, which resulted in a massive financial penalty, later reduced on appeal but with Trump still found liable for fraud.Grand jury rejects second criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources say | ReutersLawyers representing authors and publishers in a $1.5 billion copyright settlement with AI company Anthropic have requested $300 million in legal fees, amounting to 20% of the total settlement. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the fee request comes after Anthropic agreed in October to settle claims it used pirated books to train its AI models, including its commercial product Claude. As part of the agreement, Anthropic will pay over $3,000 per infringed work, destroy the infringing datasets, and certify they are not part of its commercial systems.The legal team, led by Susman Godfrey and Lieff Cabraser, argued that the fee is “conservative” by class action standards, citing more than 26,000 hours of high-risk work. The settlement, which received preliminary approval in September, is being described as the largest reported copyright class action resolution to date. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and retains the right to contest the fee amount.Authors have until January 15 to opt out of the class action and pursue individual claims. A final fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup is scheduled for April, where objections from class members and fee disputes will be reviewed.Authors' lawyers in $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement seek $300 million | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.On December 5, 1791, the world lost one of its greatest musical minds: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Just 35 years old at the time of his death, Mozart left behind an astonishing body of work that shaped the course of Western classical music. His death, shrouded in speculation and mystery, came while he was in the midst of composing what would become one of his most profound and haunting works—the Requiem in D minor, K. 626. The Lacrymosa movement, in particular, captures the emotional gravity of that moment, as if echoing his own impending end.Although Mozart did not live to finish the Requiem, the fragments he left behind were completed by his student Franz Xaver Süssmayr, guided by sketches and oral instruction. The Lacrymosa, with its solemn melodies and aching harmonies, stands as one of the most emotionally resonant sections of the work. Franz Liszt later transcribed it for solo piano, creating a version that retains its choral intensity while adding a layer of intimate, virtuosic expressiveness.Listening to Liszt's transcription of the Lacrymosa is like hearing Mozart's farewell whispered through the keys of a piano—stark, mournful, and deeply human. December 5, then, is not only the date of Mozart's passing but also a reminder of the enduring beauty he left behind, etched into every phrase of the Requiem. His music, especially in this piece, speaks across centuries to the depths of loss and the hope of transcendence.Without further ado, Mozart's Requiem in D. minor – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss the double-tap controversy roiling the Trump administration, updates on the lawfare front, 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: SkidmoreOn December 4, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a case interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were firefighters employed by a private company who sought overtime pay for time spent waiting on the employer's premises, even when not actively fighting fires. The Court ruled that such “waiting time” could qualify as compensable work depending on the circumstances — a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid rule. More significantly, the Court declined to treat the Department of Labor's interpretation of the FLSA as binding. Instead, Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, articulated what became known as “Skidmore deference,” explaining that agency interpretations are entitled to respect based on their “power to persuade,” not their authority.This approach emphasized judicial independence while still valuing agency expertise, setting a flexible standard for reviewing administrative interpretations. For decades, Skidmore shaped the way courts evaluated regulatory guidance, particularly where statutes were silent or ambiguous. That changed in 1984, when the Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, introducing a more deferential, two-step test that often required courts to uphold reasonable agency interpretations. Chevron effectively sidelined Skidmore, making agency interpretations more binding than persuasive.That more restrained approach to agency interpretation—Skidmore's “power to persuade”—quietly persisted in the background during the decades-long dominance of Chevron deference. But on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court formally overruled Chevron, declaring that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, even when those statutes are ambiguous. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns to the judiciary—not agencies—the duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and interpret statutory provisions without default deference to agency views. In doing so, the Court explicitly endorsed the Skidmore model of respect rather than deference, reaffirming that agency interpretations may still inform judicial decisions, but only to the extent they are persuasive. So, 80 years after Skidmore was decided, its modest, judge-centered vision of statutory interpretation has once again become the law of the land.A group of former federal employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully removed them from their jobs due to their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs claim the dismissals were politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.According to the complaint, the reductions in force went beyond typical administrative turnover, instead constituting a deliberate effort to punish perceived political opponents. The plaintiffs argue they were targeted because they held, or were believed to have held, roles connected to DEI initiatives, which President Trump vocally opposed. The lawsuit points to executive orders that allegedly discriminated against women, people of color, and nonbinary individuals.Defendants named include the White House, Justice Department, CIA, Defense Department, Federal Reserve, Labor Department, and Treasury. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority, and attorneys' fees.Trump, Agencies Hit With Ex-Federal Workers' Political Bias SuitUnder President Trump's second administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is on track for its lowest number of earnings fraud and auditor liability enforcement actions since the Reagan era. So far in 2025, only 20 such cases have been filed—far below the historical average of 79 per year since Trump's first term began in 2017. The decline is attributed to leadership changes, a 43-day government shutdown, shifting agency priorities, and a shrinking SEC staff due to retirements and buyouts.SEC Chair Paul Atkins has emphasized targeting only the most harmful and deliberate frauds, deprioritizing minor or technical violations. Enforcement has also slowed due to procedural constraints, including legal challenges limiting the use of in-house judges and forcing more cases into federal court. Despite the drop in formal actions, former officials and commission watchers caution that investigations continue behind the scenes and could yield future penalties.The agency did finalize some notable settlements early in the year, including $19 million from American Electric Power and $8 million from GrubMarket. However, enforcement activity has since dropped steeply, marking the largest first-year decline following a presidential inauguration since the 1980s.SEC's Earnings Fraud, Auditor Liability Cases Plunge Under TrumpU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will stop processing green cards and related immigration benefits for individuals from 19 countries named in a June Trump administration travel ban. This expanded restriction follows a separate decision by the State Department to suspend visa processing for Afghan nationals after a deadly shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.The new USCIS policy affects several types of applications, including those for permanent residency, green card replacements, travel documents, and requests by permanent residents to maintain status while abroad. The halt applies regardless of when the applicant entered the U.S. The agency cited national security concerns as the reason for the changes and indicated all affected individuals may face renewed interviews or screenings.The travel ban currently includes countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and others, with reports suggesting the administration plans to expand the list to about 30 nations. The memo emphasized that individuals from these “high-risk countries of concern” who arrived in the U.S. after January 20, 2021, are subject to re-evaluation.Trump Travel Ban Limits Extend to Green Cards, Other Benefits 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: Morgan v. VirginiaOn December 3, 1946, the NAACP filed the pivotal case Morgan v. Virginia, challenging state-enforced segregation on interstate buses. The case arose after Irene Morgan, a Black woman, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from Virginia to Maryland in 1944. Arrested and fined under Virginia law, Morgan appealed her conviction with the support of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black Supreme Court Justice, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.The legal argument hinged on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress—not individual states—the power to regulate interstate commerce. Marshall argued that Virginia's segregation law placed an undue burden on interstate travel and was thus unconstitutional. In a 7–1 decision issued in June 1946, the Court agreed, holding that states could not impose segregation on interstate passengers.Though the ruling did not end segregation on all public transportation, it was a critical legal breakthrough. It limited the reach of Jim Crow laws and marked one of the earliest Supreme Court victories for the civil rights movement. The decision also served as a foundation for future rulings, including Boynton v. Virginia (1960), and inspired direct action like the Freedom Rides of the early 1960s.Morgan v. Virginia helped establish a constitutional framework for challenging racially discriminatory laws under federal authority. It demonstrated the NAACP's strategy of incremental legal challenges and the importance of judicial victories in the broader civil rights struggle.A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a law that would strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and similar organizations in 22 states. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the provision, part of the Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, likely violates the Constitution's Spending Clause by retroactively imposing ambiguous conditions on state Medicaid participation. The law bars Medicaid funding for nonprofit reproductive health providers that offer abortions and received over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023.Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the law's enforcement in the states that sued, including California, New York, and Connecticut, along with the District of Columbia. However, she stayed her ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. The judge warned that enforcing the law would increase healthcare costs and reduce access to preventive services like birth control and screenings.Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling, calling the law unconstitutional and harmful. The organization reported that at least 20 health centers have closed since the law began taking effect in September. States argued the law forced an unexpected change to Medicaid operations and undermined their authority to choose eligible healthcare providers.US judge blocks Trump from cutting Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in 22 states | ReutersThe Trump administration has dismissed at least seven immigration judges from New York City's immigration court, located at 26 Federal Plaza, a central site for immigration enforcement and protests. This move is part of a broader pattern under President Trump's second term, with over 100 immigration judges reportedly removed nationwide since January, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Critics say these firings are worsening backlogs at a time when arrests and deportations are increasing.Immigration judges operate under the Department of Justice, not the independent federal judiciary, and are considered inferior officers who can be dismissed by the president or attorney general. The Justice Department declined to comment on the terminations. Among those fired was Amiena Khan, the court's assistant chief immigration judge and former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, who had previously opposed efforts to dismantle the judges' union.Khan and six other judges, all women, had their names removed from the court's staff directory, with five appointed by Democratic administrations and two during Trump's first term. These dismissals follow similar firings in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere. One former judge in Ohio has filed a lawsuit, alleging her termination was due to discrimination based on sex, national origin, and political beliefs.Trump administration fires numerous New York immigration judges | ReutersRahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect in a deadly Washington, D.C. ambush that killed one National Guard member and critically injured another, pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance. He participated remotely from a hospital bed and was ordered held without bond due to the violent nature of the attack, which occurred just blocks from the White House. The judge cited the “sheer terror” of the incident in denying release.Prosecutors allege that Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, traveled from Washington state to D.C. with the intent to carry out the shooting. He reportedly opened fire while shouting “Allahu akbar,” fatally shooting 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom and injuring 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, both West Virginia National Guard members deployed to aid law enforcement. Lakanwal was subdued by military personnel and a Secret Service officer after being shot.He faces four charges, including first-degree murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. Lakanwal's defense highlighted his lack of criminal history, but prosecutors emphasized the premeditated nature of his actions. His immigration status has drawn political attention—he entered the U.S. under a resettlement program launched during the Biden administration and was granted asylum under Trump, making the case a focal point in renewed debates over immigration policy.Washington shooting suspect pleads not guilty to murder, ordered detained | 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 Brown AssassinatedOn December 2, 1859, abolitionist John Brown was executed by hanging in Charles Town, Virginia (now West Virginia), following his conviction for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection. Brown had led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry in October, attempting to seize weapons and incite a large-scale slave uprising. His plan failed, with most of his men either killed or captured, and Brown himself wounded and arrested by U.S. Marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. The legal proceedings against him were swift: Brown was indicted within days, tried in state court, and sentenced to death less than a month after the raid.His execution was a national event, drawing immense media coverage and polarized public reaction. In the North, many abolitionists hailed him as a martyr who sacrificed his life to end the moral atrocity of slavery. In the South, he was widely viewed as a terrorist whose actions confirmed fears of Northern aggression and interference. Brown's trial and punishment underscored the deepening legal and moral divide between free and slave states, particularly regarding states' rights, federalism, and the use of violence to oppose injustice. The charges of treason and insurrection also raised complex constitutional questions, since Brown was prosecuted under state, not federal, law — despite attacking a federal facility. His case set the stage for intensifying legal and political disputes over the limits of protest, the legitimacy of armed resistance, and the definition of loyalty to the state.Brown's final words, predicting that “the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood,” would prove prescient less than two years later when the Civil War began.A federal appeals court has ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, was unlawfully appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's finding that the Trump administration violated federal appointments law in installing Habba without Senate confirmation or proper legal authority. This decision disqualifies her from overseeing federal cases in the state, potentially disrupting numerous active prosecutions.The case was brought by defense attorneys who argued that the Justice Department used procedural workarounds to improperly extend Habba's tenure after New Jersey's district judges declined to reauthorize her. In response, DOJ fired her court-appointed successor and tried to reassign Habba under a different title, which the court rejected. The ruling is significant because it's the first appellate decision pushing back on Trump-era efforts to place loyalists in key legal roles without Senate oversight.Habba, who had no prior prosecutorial experience, previously represented Trump in high-profile civil litigation, including the defamation case involving E. Jean Carroll. During her controversial tenure, she was criticized for politicized statements and for filing charges against a Democratic congresswoman. Similar appointment disputes are playing out in other states, and this decision sets a strong precedent against bypassing constitutional and statutory nomination processes. The administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.Court disqualifies Trump ally Habba as top New Jersey federal prosecutor | ReutersHSBC has announced a multi-year partnership with French start-up Mistral AI to integrate generative AI tools across its global operations. The bank plans to self-host Mistral's commercial AI models and future upgrades, combining its own tech infrastructure with Mistral's cutting-edge AI capabilities. The collaboration aims to boost automation, productivity, and customer service, with use cases spanning financial analysis, multilingual translation, risk assessment, and personalized client interactions.By adopting Mistral's tools, HSBC expects to significantly reduce time spent on routine, document-heavy tasks, such as those in credit and financing teams. Already active in AI applications like fraud detection and compliance, the bank sees this deal as a way to accelerate innovation cycles and roll out new features more efficiently. The move comes amid a broader industry trend as banks seek to scale generative AI solutions, while addressing ongoing concerns around data privacy. HSBC emphasized that all deployments will comply with its responsible AI governance standards to ensure transparency and protection.HSBC taps French start-up Mistral to supercharge generative-AI rollout | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has commuted the prison sentence of David Gentile, the former CEO of GPB Capital Holdings, who was convicted under the Biden administration for his role in what prosecutors called a Ponzi scheme. Gentile had been serving a seven-year sentence after being found guilty of securities fraud in 2024. The DOJ argued that GPB misled investors by using new investor funds to pay returns, rather than profits from legitimate operations.However, in announcing the commutation, a White House official pushed back on the prosecution's claims, arguing that investors had been clearly informed about the firm's payment practices and that prosecutors failed to directly link fraudulent misrepresentations to Gentile during trial. The official also alleged misconduct, claiming the government elicited and failed to correct false testimony.The commutation comes amid heightened political scrutiny of financial fraud prosecutions and continues Trump's trend of intervening in controversial white-collar cases. The Department of Justice has not yet responded to the decision.Trump frees former GPB Capital CEO after Biden admin's Ponzi scheme sentence | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week is about … the penny. The official end of penny production may seem trivial, but it's creating real legal headaches for retailers and tax administrators alike. Without the one-cent coin, states are facing ambiguity about how to round sales tax totals for cash transactions—should it happen before or after tax, and who absorbs the rounding loss? These questions go largely unanswered, and in the absence of clear rules, businesses are improvising, which risks inconsistent compliance and enforcement challenges. There's also a legal tension where cash transactions require rounding but card payments do not—potentially running afoul of laws banning payment-method discrimination or even the Internet Tax Freedom Act.Streamlined Sales Tax rules add more complexity, limiting when and how rounding can occur and cautioning against systems that enrich the state at consumers' expense. I argue that instead of patchwork fixes, this moment should push states to modernize their sales tax systems with mandatory e-invoicing and real-time reporting. This would standardize how tax is calculated and rounded, reduce compliance uncertainty, and shrink the window for fraud. Paired with something like a receipt lottery—used successfully in countries like Brazil and China—states could turn customers into compliance allies by rewarding them for scanning and validating receipts.Ultimately, automating rounding decisions and reporting in point-of-sale systems would lift the burden off retailers and give governments cleaner data with lower enforcement costs. The penny may be dead, but this is a rare chance to bring sales tax enforcement into the 21st century. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst, Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia) on the Legal News of the DayWhere to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, December 1, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Rosa Parks ArrestedOn December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, for refusing to surrender her seat to a white passenger on a segregated city bus. Parks, a 42-year-old Black seamstress and longtime activist, had been sitting in the “colored” section when the driver demanded she move. Her quiet but firm defiance violated local segregation laws, which mandated racial separation in public transportation and required Black passengers to yield seats to white passengers when buses became crowded. Parks' arrest became a catalyst for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a coordinated campaign to end racial segregation on public transit.The boycott began four days later, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association, with a then-unknown Martin Luther King Jr. as its president. It lasted over a year, during which thousands of Black residents refused to use the city's buses, severely impacting the transit system's finances. The protest was not only a powerful act of collective resistance but also a carefully structured legal challenge. Civil rights attorneys, including Fred Gray, filed a federal lawsuit—Browder v. Gayle—on behalf of several Black women who had experienced bus segregation.In November 1956, the federal district court ruled that Montgomery's segregated bus system was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision, and on December 20, 1956, the boycott officially ended when the Court's ruling was implemented. Rosa Parks' arrest and the movement it sparked marked a turning point in the American civil rights struggle. Her individual act of resistance ignited a mass movement and set the stage for future legal and social change.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a key copyright case today involving Cox Communications and several major record labels, including Sony, Warner, and Universal. The case centers on whether Cox can be held financially liable for allegedly enabling its users to illegally download music. A jury originally awarded the labels $1 billion in 2019 after finding Cox secondarily liable for over 10,000 copyright infringements, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed part of that decision, leading to a retrial on damages.Cox argues it shouldn't be held accountable for users' actions, warning that a ruling against it could force ISPs to terminate internet access for entire households or public institutions over alleged piracy. The company claims it reasonably handled piracy reports and criticized the notion that it failed to act. In contrast, the labels accuse Cox of ignoring thousands of infringement notices and protecting profitable repeat offenders while readily cutting off nonpaying customers.Big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have sided with Cox, suggesting that a ruling for the labels could harm the internet economy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—represented by Solicitor General John Sauer—is supporting Cox's view that merely knowing about piracy isn't enough to establish liability. Industry groups in music, film, and publishing back the labels, arguing that Cox's stance threatens collaborative anti-piracy efforts. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape how ISPs respond to copyright violations.US Supreme Court to hear copyright dispute between Cox and record labels | ReutersFollowing a deadly shooting in Washington, D.C., involving an Afghan immigrant accused of killing a National Guard member, President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to restrict legal immigration. Within 48 hours of the attack, Trump paused Afghan immigration applications, launched a review of asylum approvals from the Biden era, and hinted at expanded vetting under his existing travel ban targeting 19 countries. These moves revive and build upon restrictive immigration policies from Trump's first term, now framed as necessary for national security.Critics argue the administration is exploiting a tragic but isolated incident to justify sweeping immigration rollbacks. Afghan advocacy groups stressed that Afghan immigrants undergo extensive vetting and should not be broadly blamed. While Trump and top officials suggested large-scale reforms—like ending federal benefits for non-citizens and denaturalizing those deemed a threat—federal agencies have so far announced more limited actions, such as case reviews for applicants from travel-ban countries.Legal experts warn that some of the proposed policies, including denying welfare to lawful residents and mass denaturalization, would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the administration is signaling an aggressive stance, despite polls showing declining public approval of Trump's immigration policies. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse Trump of targeting law-abiding immigrants and using fear-based tactics for political gain.Trump sharpens focus on legal immigration after National Guard shooting | ReutersA federal judge's decision to ban generative AI from his chambers after an intern used it in a flawed court opinion has sparked debate over how technology should be used in the legal system. Judge Julien Neals of New Jersey attributed the error in a June ruling to a law student who used AI in violation of their school's policy, prompting Neals to prohibit AI use entirely among his staff. His response to Senator Chuck Grassley drew concern from legal academics and judges who argue that banning AI outright may be shortsighted.Proponents of AI in the judiciary say the technology, if used responsibly, could reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency amid staffing shortages. Judge Xavier Rodriguez of Texas ran an experiment comparing traditional opinion writing with AI-assisted drafting, showing significant time savings without sacrificing quality. He and others advocate for structured AI use, emphasizing vetting, fact-checking, and clear protocols to preserve judicial integrity.Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard and law professors like David Kemp suggest that instead of bans, institutions should focus on teaching students ethical and effective AI use. With many law students already accustomed to using generative AI, schools are scrambling to develop policies and training. Some institutions, like the University of Chicago Law School, have embraced AI integration, while others lag behind. The incident in Judge Neals' courtroom has become a wake-up call for courts and law schools to align on responsible AI use in legal education and practice.Judges' AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in CourtsLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile shooting outside a Manhattan hotel, appeared in court today for key pretrial hearings. The 27-year-old, arrested in December 2024, has pleaded not guilty to murder and multiple related charges in both state and federal cases. The hearings will determine whether crucial evidence—including a 3-D printed gun, silencer, and journal writings found in Mangione's backpack—can be used at trial. His defense argues that the items were obtained through an illegal search during his arrest in Pennsylvania and that statements he made to police should also be excluded.Prosecutors dispute those claims and are seeking to admit the materials, which they argue implicate Mangione in the killing. Mangione, who has gained a controversial following among critics of the U.S. healthcare system, faces life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. In a separate federal case, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty. Earlier in September, two terrorism charges were dismissed after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence Mangione intended to intimidate healthcare workers or influence government policy.The hearings, overseen by Judge Gregory Carro, are expected to last through the week and include testimony from arresting officers. No trial date has yet been set, and Mangione remains in federal custody in Brooklyn.Luigi Mangione due in court for pretrial hearings over US healthcare executive's killing | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Free Speech at the MoviesOn this day in legal history, November 25, 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, holding that motion pictures were not protected under the First Amendment. The case arose when Ohio enacted a law requiring films to be approved by a censorship board before public exhibition. Mutual Film Corporation challenged the statute, arguing it infringed upon free speech and press freedoms. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, declaring that movies were a business enterprise, not a medium of public expression deserving constitutional protection. The Court emphasized that films could be used for evil and lacked the inherent public value of newspapers or books.This ruling gave states and cities wide discretion to censor films, leading to the rise of local and state censorship boards that controlled what audiences could legally view. It also provided a legal foundation for the Motion Picture Production Code, or Hays Code, a system of industry self-censorship that dominated Hollywood for decades. For nearly 40 years, this decision limited the creative scope of filmmakers and allowed governments to suppress films based on moral, religious, or political grounds.It wasn't until Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson in 1952 that the Supreme Court reversed course, striking down New York's ban on a film deemed “sacrilegious” and recognizing movies as a significant medium for the communication of ideas. The reversal marked a turning point for First Amendment jurisprudence and artistic freedom. But on November 25, 1915, the legal system closed the door on film as protected speech—setting the stage for a long legal battle over cinema's place in American constitutional law.The U.S. Department of Justice's misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was dismissed. The rare complaint accused Reyes of bias in her handling of a case challenging President Donald Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled in September that judicial misconduct proceedings were not the proper venue to raise such concerns, suggesting instead that the DOJ could have filed for Reyes' recusal if it believed she was unfit to preside.The complaint, filed in February before Reyes ruled on the case, alleged she had shown hostility during hearings by expressing disbelief, questioning a lawyer's religion, and engaging in behavior the DOJ claimed compromised the dignity of the courtroom. The Justice Department claimed her conduct showed potential bias. In March, Reyes blocked Trump's executive order, though her ruling is currently on hold pending appeal. The complaint was one of only two such filings by the DOJ amid broader tensions between Trump's administration and the judiciary. Neither Reyes nor the DOJ commented on the dismissal.US DOJ's misconduct complaint against judge in transgender military ban case gets tossed | ReutersA federal judge dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that the prosecutor who brought the charges lacked lawful authority. The judge concluded that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by the Trump administration as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was installed in violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause and federal law governing interim U.S. attorney appointments. Because her appointment was invalid, every step she took—including securing indictments—was deemed an unlawful exercise of executive power and therefore had to be vacated. The judge rejected the Justice Department's argument that the attorney general could repeatedly make interim appointments without Senate confirmation, noting that doing so would sidestep the constitutionally required process. Attempts by Attorney General Pam Bondi to retroactively validate Halligan's actions—such as re-appointing her as a special attorney and “ratifying” the indictments—were also found ineffective.Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal statute, U.S. Attorneys must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, the Attorney General may make an interim appointment, but that appointment is limited by law to 120 days. If a permanent U.S. Attorney is not confirmed within that time, the district court may appoint a replacement to serve until the vacancy is officially filled. This process is designed to ensure both accountability and separation of powers, preventing the executive branch from indefinitely bypassing Senate oversight by cycling through temporary appointments. Repeated or back-to-back interim appointments without Senate confirmation undermine this framework, raising constitutional concerns about legitimacy and legality.The cases were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open to new prosecutions, though the expired statute of limitations appears to bar refiling against Comey. Defense lawyers had additionally characterized the charges as politically driven, but the court did not need to reach those claims because the appointment defect alone required dismissal. The ruling underscores that prosecutions must be brought by properly appointed officials, and that structural constitutional violations invalidate downstream actions—even in high-profile or politically charged cases.US judge tosses cases against ex-FBI chief Comey, New York AG James | ReutersA federal judge has denied Arkansas health worker Joy Gray's request for immediate reinstatement after she was fired over social media comments made following the murder of conservative figure Charlie Kirk. Gray sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Arkansas Department of Health to rehire her, continue paying her, or provide a “name-clearing hearing” to protect her reputation. However, U.S. District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky ruled that Gray failed to demonstrate the kind of irreparable harm necessary to justify emergency relief, emphasizing that job loss—even from a government position—does not automatically meet that legal standard. He cited controlling precedent, noting Gray did not show she couldn't be adequately compensated by monetary damages if she ultimately wins her case.The judge also rejected her claim that the department's actions were currently chilling her speech, pointing out that the firing was a past event and not part of an ongoing restriction. Additionally, her request for a name-clearing hearing was unlikely to succeed, as the court found no stigmatizing statements in the department's response. Rudofsky was careful to clarify that this ruling does not determine the outcome of Gray's broader First Amendment retaliation claim, which may involve more complex legal questions as the case proceeds.State Worker Fired for Kirk Posts Can't Revive Job During Trial 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 discuss Trump's designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organization, the proposed Ukraine peace plan, 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: Lee Harvey Oswald ShotOn November 24, 1963, two days after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the nation watched in shock as Lee Harvey Oswald—the alleged assassin—was gunned down on live television. The shooter, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, entered the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and fatally shot Oswald as he was being transferred to the county jail. The killing unfolded in front of journalists, cameras, and law enforcement, searing itself into the American consciousness and further fueling public distrust in official accounts of the assassination.Though Ruby claimed his act was motivated by grief and a desire to spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of a trial, his actions raised immediate concerns about the adequacy of security in high-profile cases. Oswald's death eliminated any opportunity for a public trial, which would have offered a transparent legal accounting of the events in Dallas. Ruby was later convicted of murder, though his conviction was overturned on appeal before he died of cancer in 1967.The legal ramifications of Oswald's televised murder were broad and lasting. It led to reforms in detainee protection, prompted scrutiny over media access in sensitive law enforcement operations, and spotlighted the vulnerability of chain of custody and judicial process in emotionally charged cases. The event also highlighted the need for careful separation between law enforcement procedures and the media spectacle surrounding them. Ruby's case prompted legal scholars to revisit the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to observe proceedings.This legal flashpoint helped set the stage for subsequent debates about pretrial publicity, venue changes, and judicial instructions to mitigate media influence on juries. It also foreshadowed a new era where courtroom access and high-profile criminal justice collided in an age of mass media.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a press freedom case between the Associated Press (AP) and President Donald Trump's administration. The case centers on whether the White House violated constitutional protections by restricting AP's access to presidential events after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the long-recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”In April, a federal judge—appointed by Trump—granted a preliminary injunction in AP's favor, requiring the administration to restore the agency's full access. However, the appeals court later paused that ruling while it considers the government's challenge. The Trump administration argues that news organizations do not have a constitutional right to “special access” to areas like the Oval Office.AP's lawsuit, filed in February, claims the restrictions are retaliatory and violate the First and Fifth Amendments. The case has drawn attention for its potential implications beyond journalism, touching on the broader question of whether the government can punish speech that conflicts with its messaging. The administration has defended its actions as part of a general press policy rather than targeted retaliation.The conflict escalated after Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf, which AP chose not to adopt due to its editorial standards. The White House then limited the agency's access and removed AP and Reuters from the regular press pool. AP has framed the case as critical to preventing government coercion of the press.US appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office | ReutersNewly unsealed court filings allege that Meta Platforms shut down internal research after discovering evidence that Facebook use caused measurable harm to users' mental health. In a 2020 internal study, dubbed “Project Mercury,” Meta partnered with Nielsen to examine the effects of Facebook deactivation. Users who left the platform for a week reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison—results the company allegedly found troubling enough to halt further study and dismiss as tainted by public bias.Despite internal acknowledgment that the findings were valid, Meta did not publish the results and later told Congress it could not quantify harm from its products. The lawsuit—filed by U.S. school districts against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google—claims the platforms concealed known risks from users, parents, and educators. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta's safety features were deliberately underdeveloped, and that high thresholds for user removal allowed exploitative behavior to persist unchecked.Among the more serious accusations: Meta allegedly deprioritized child safety concerns in favor of platform growth, suppressed internal safety testing, and allowed human trafficking accounts to remain active until repeated violations were flagged—up to 17 times. Plaintiffs say Meta and other companies also tried to buy favorable public positioning by sponsoring child advocacy groups, such as TikTok's internal brag about its influence over the National PTA.Meta has denied the allegations, calling them misleading and based on selective quotes. The company says it has robust teen safety measures and that accounts involved in trafficking are now removed upon first report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January in federal court.Meta buried ‘causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege | ReutersThe Trump administration is moving forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and relocate its functions across six other federal agencies, including Labor and Health and Human Services. According to multiple sources familiar with the effort, senior officials and department directors have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an uncommon move for a civilian agency without a national security mandate. These agreements are reportedly being used to limit information sharing as the reorganization proceeds behind closed doors.Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the restructuring this week, framing it as a way to “end federal micromanagement” while still supporting education through other agencies. Some staff have already transitioned to new posts, and more are expected to relocate by January. However, specifics on the timeline and scope of the overhaul remain vague, even to congressional oversight committees and education advocates.Critics argue the administration is sidelining Congress and the public in what they call an opaque and potentially destabilizing shift. Senator Patty Murray called the effort “sabotage,” citing the lack of transparency and collaboration. Meanwhile, McMahon has reportedly met with lawmakers and urged Congress to formalize the changes through legislation, though no formal bill has yet been introduced.US Education Department requiring non-disclosure agreements in Trump reorganization, sources say | ReutersIn a deep-dive investigation, FOIAball uncovered how UCLA Athletics appears to have routed large sums of money intended for football player NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals through a tax-exempt charity—Shelter 37, run by the co-founder of the school's official NIL collective, Bruins for Life. This maneuver may have allowed donors to receive tax deductions for contributions that ultimately compensated athletes, despite recent IRS rulings stating such collectives do not qualify for charitable status.Emails obtained through public records show that UCLA development staff actively coached donors to send checks to Shelter 37 while explicitly designating those funds for Bruins for Life, the school's NIL program. These emails often discussed timing, amounts, and communication with the charity's leadership to ensure the money was redirected as intended. In several cases, UCLA staff reassured donors that contributions through donor-advised funds (DAFs)—normally restricted from supporting private benefit—could be routed to Shelter 37 and still benefit athletes.After the IRS began denying charitable status to NIL collectives in 2023 due to private benefit concerns, most programs shifted to non-deductible donations. But UCLA's workaround relied on Shelter 37's 501(c)(3) status to continue offering donors deductions, despite Shelter 37's own filings showing the vast majority of its funds in 2024—$3.6 million of $4.8 million—were raised for UCLA football NIL purposes. By contrast, it spent only $200 on scholarships for at-risk youth, its purported mission.Legal experts, including yours truly, told FOIAball that this could constitute fraudulent behavior, noting that charities must exercise control over their funds and serve the public interest—not act as pass-throughs for private benefit. UCLA officials, when asked for comment, did not address the specifics. Meanwhile, Shelter 37's president denied improper coordination but acknowledged the charity paid players to appear at events, an arrangement experts say still violates nonprofit law if the real intent is athlete compensation.How UCLA used a friendly charity to get tax-free NIL money This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi BurningOn November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims' civil rights.This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government's authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury's action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google's AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google's anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google's ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema's earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google's dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | ReutersAs the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they're perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City's incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | ReutersIn a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn't permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government's tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account's highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam's case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn't file, and ended up with a crushing figure.I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren't drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they're ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court's acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we're no longer talking about a compliance tool—we're talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn't hide money or lie about his income; he just didn't file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR PenaltiesThis week's closing theme is by Henry Purcell.This week's closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell's work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell's music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.It's a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell's talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia's Day approaches, Purcell's music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.And with that, enjoy Purcell's Overture in G minor! 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: Ratification of the Bill of Rights by New JerseyOn November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, a landmark moment in American constitutional history. Just months after the U.S. Constitution went into effect, debate over its lack of explicit protections for individual liberties sparked calls for amendments. Responding to this concern, James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments in the First Congress in June 1789, aiming to ease Anti-Federalist fears and solidify support for the new federal government. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification.New Jersey acted swiftly, ratifying eleven of the twelve proposed amendments less than two months later. The state rejected the first proposed amendment, which concerned congressional representation, and accepted the rest, including protections for freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey's early endorsement gave momentum to the broader ratification effort, which required approval by three-fourths of the states.By December 15, 1791, ten of the amendments had been ratified by the necessary eleven states and became known as the Bill of Rights. These provisions would become foundational to American legal doctrine, judicial interpretation, and civil liberties jurisprudence. New Jersey's rapid ratification also signaled the willingness of smaller states to embrace a constitutional framework that better balanced federal power with individual protections.The ratification process itself reflected the structural legal mechanism required to alter the Constitution—Article V mandates both congressional proposal and state approval. This episode demonstrates how early American legal institutions navigated public pressure and political compromise to create durable legal norms. The Bill of Rights remains central to constitutional interpretation today, frequently invoked in court cases involving speech, privacy, and due process.A group of senior judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently influenced several rulings on politically sensitive cases, softening the conservative tone of one of the nation's most right-leaning appellate courts. These judges, many appointed decades ago by presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were part of three-judge panels that struck down or allowed challenges to laws involving religion in schools, drag shows on campus, and firearm signage. However, these decisions are now set for reconsideration by the court's full active bench in January, as part of a growing trend of en banc rehearings.The Fifth Circuit includes 17 active judges and seven senior judges. While senior judges can still hear cases and author opinions, their influence is ultimately limited because active judges control en banc reviews, which can overturn panel rulings. Most of these upcoming en banc cases saw dissents from Trump-appointed judges at the panel level. Some senior judges, like Edith Brown Clement, are conservative and remain highly active, while others like James Dennis and Patrick Higginbotham are known for their moderate or liberal views and are key voices in current and upcoming decisions.Legal experts say senior judges' experience and moderation often make them more willing to adhere to precedent rather than pursue ideological shifts. Their dissents and opinions can also help signal to the U.S. Supreme Court that a case warrants review. With an increase in ideologically charged cases on topics like immigration and free speech, the Fifth Circuit's internal dynamics reflect a broader national tension between judicial restraint and a more activist, conservative legal agenda.Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges' RulingsThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic harassment. The EEOC's request was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and stems from a charge initiated in December 2023 by Republican-appointed Chair Andrea Lucas. The agency is seeking documents and information identifying victims and witnesses to reported religious-based harassment affecting faculty and staff.The investigation centers on claims that the university failed to adequately respond to internal complaints of antisemitism. The EEOC under Lucas—particularly during and after the first Trump administration—has prioritized enforcement actions related to religious discrimination, with higher education institutions facing increased scrutiny. Penn has not yet issued a public response regarding the subpoena or the broader investigation.EEOC Seeks UPenn Information Disclosure in Antisemitism ProbeCryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced that it has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. The move positions Kraken among several digital asset firms seeking to go public amid renewed investor interest in the crypto sector. Other companies like Circle and Gemini have also made progress toward U.S. listings this year.Kraken recently reported a $20 billion valuation in its latest fundraising round, marking a 33% increase over the past two months. While the company did not disclose specific details about the IPO structure or timeline, the filing indicates growing momentum for digital finance firms in public markets.Crypto exchange Kraken confidentially files for US IPO | ReutersThe U.S. government has loaned Constellation Energy $1 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at the former Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania. The project, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center, involves reviving an 835-megawatt reactor that was shut down in 2019. Constellation entered a partnership with Microsoft in 2024 to help offset the tech company's energy use, especially for power-intensive data centers. The reactor's restart reflects rising energy demand tied to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.The Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) issued the loan to help lower financing costs and encourage private investment. Officials emphasized that nuclear energy offers stable, carbon-free baseload power critical for both grid reliability and climate goals. While Constellation is financially strong enough to obtain private funding, the administration said public support signals a national commitment to clean and dependable energy infrastructure.The plant still needs regulatory approvals, including from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Constellation has already begun hiring workers, inspecting systems, and ordering essential equipment. The company now expects the reactor to come online by 2027, a year ahead of the original timeline due to an accelerated grid connection review.US loans Constellation $1 billion for Three Mile Island reactor reboot | 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: Gettysburg AddressOn November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn't make it—Lincoln's draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.Drawing inspiration from Pericles' Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won't scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln's words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.Lincoln's words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln's deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump's long-standing animosity. Comey's lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey's prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan's appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump's public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.Comey's case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump's calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.US judge to weigh Trump's influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | ReutersCravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | ReutersCravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC's crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”Trump's administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.Selig's nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump's earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.Senate to grill Trump's pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN's language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN's statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.Trump had also tried to compare CNN's interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump's conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court's refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie' 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: Statute of MarlboroughOn November 18, 1267, the Statute of Marlborough was enacted during the reign of King Henry III of England. It is the oldest piece of English statute law still partially in force, with four of its original twenty-nine chapters remaining on the books. The statute emerged from a period of intense baronial conflict and civil unrest, notably the Second Barons' War, and was part of a broader effort to restore royal authority and stabilize governance through legal reform. It reinforced the crown's prerogatives while addressing grievances raised by rebellious nobles, making it a compromise between royal and feudal powers.Among its most enduring provisions were regulations on the practice of “distress,” which referred to the seizure of property to compel debt repayment or enforce court judgments. The statute restricted unlawful and excessive distresses, requiring them to occur only with legal justification and in the appropriate jurisdiction. These reforms curtailed private self-help remedies and emphasized formal court processes, laying foundational principles for due process and the centralization of judicial authority. It also addressed issues like wardship, waste of land, and the obligations of tenants—key concerns in the feudal legal structure.The Statute of Marlborough built upon earlier reforms such as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, but had a more lasting legal impact. Its survival into modern times speaks to the durability of certain legal concepts, especially those reinforcing procedural fairness. Some of its language has been modernized, but the essence of its rules remains intact in English law. The statute reflects an early attempt to systematize and limit both public and private power through legal mechanisms. Legal historians often point to it as a stepping stone on the path to the English common law tradition.The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government's authority to limit asylum processing at official U.S.-Mexico border crossings under the now-rescinded “metering” policy. Originally implemented under President Trump and formalized in 2018, metering allowed border agents to stop asylum seekers before they crossed into the U.S. and decline to process their claims, even when they were physically present at ports of entry. The Biden administration repealed the policy in 2021, but Trump's return to office has revived interest in reestablishing it.At the core of the case is the legal meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States,” with the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2024 that it includes people who reach official border entry points—even if still on the Mexican side. That ruling held that federal law requires asylum seekers at ports of entry to be inspected and allowed to apply, regardless of logistical constraints like capacity. The advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which brought the lawsuit in 2017, argues the metering policy illegally circumvented these obligations, leaving vulnerable migrants stranded in dangerous border conditions.Trump's Justice Department contends that “arrives in” means actual entry, not mere proximity—using analogies ranging from Normandy to football to make its point. The administration has also signaled that it intends to resume the policy if conditions warrant. The case, which will likely be decided by June, comes amid broader efforts to restrict asylum protections globally and may clarify the limits of executive power over humanitarian migration policy.Supreme Court to review US government power to limit asylum processing | ReutersA California judge has blocked a proposed class action lawsuit involving 6,000 Black workers at Tesla's Fremont factory who alleged systemic racial harassment, marking a significant legal win for the company. Judge Peter Borkon ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs' attorneys failed to secure testimony from at least 200 workers—raising doubts about whether the experiences of a smaller group could represent the broader workforce. This reverses a 2024 decision by another judge who had previously allowed the class to move forward.The original lawsuit, filed in 2017 by former worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged pervasive racism at the facility, including slurs, racist graffiti, and even nooses in work areas. Tesla has denied allowing harassment and said it takes disciplinary action against those who violate company policy. While this ruling narrows the scope of Vaughn's lawsuit, Tesla still faces other legal challenges, including a similar case from California's civil rights agency and a separate federal suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tesla has previously settled other race discrimination lawsuits brought by individual employees.Tesla wins bid to undo race bias class action by Black factory workers | ReutersAshurst and Perkins Coie have agreed to merge, forming a global law firm with 3,000 lawyers and $2.7 billion in revenue—placing it among the world's top 20 legal outfits by size. The merger, expected to close in late 2026 pending partner approval, will create Ashurst Perkins Coie, with 52 offices across 23 countries. The move is part of a broader trend of transatlantic law firm consolidation aimed at scaling up to serve cross-border clients more effectively.Leadership will be shared between Ashurst's global CEO Paul Jenkins and Perkins Coie's managing partner Bill Malley, who emphasized the merger's value for clients in technology, financial services, and energy. Talks began in early 2025, with both firms framing the deal as a long-term strategic alignment. Perkins Coie recently gained attention for its role in successfully challenging executive orders from President Trump's administration targeting the firm and others tied to his political adversaries. While the firms say they have no current plans to expand their office footprint, the combination signals a deepening of U.K.-U.S. legal market integration.Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at OpenAI's effort to expand the CHIPS Act tax credit into a broad-based AI infrastructure subsidy—and what it reveals about the government's evolving role in underwriting the AI economy. OpenAI has asked the federal government to stretch the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit—originally designed to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing—to cover the entire AI stack, from servers to steel. That request arrives as data centers' energy consumption and land use start imposing real costs on local grids, budgets, and communities, raising the question: who's actually footing the bill for AI?I argue that this isn't a bailout so much as a bid for taxpayer-backed central planning, with a venture-capital gloss. AI infrastructure projects like OpenAI's Stargate centers already benefit from layers of state and local tax breaks, discounted electricity, and favorable land deals. Adding a 35% federal credit on top creates a subsidy stack that warps local priorities—school districts lose tax revenue, utilities are forced to reroute energy, and residents pay more on their bills. The public impact is mounting, even as the private benefit remains largely proprietary and insulated.Rather than offering blank checks, Congress should condition federal support on clear benefit-sharing requirements: job thresholds, emissions transparency, energy sourcing obligations, and clawbacks for missed targets. I propose a framework that makes federal aid contingent on upfront impact disclosures, co-investment in the grid, and full accounting of overlapping subsidies. Industrial policy isn't inherently bad—but without enforceable terms, we're not funding a public-private partnership. We're subsidizing a corporate buildout dressed up as a national security imperative. 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: US Capitol OpensOn November 17, 1800, the United States Congress convened for the first time in the new Capitol building in Washington, D.C., marking a foundational moment in American legal and political history. The relocation came after a decade of Congress meeting in temporary quarters, most recently in Philadelphia, as the young republic grappled with questions of permanence and national identity. Washington, D.C. had been selected as the capital through the Residence Act of 1790, a political compromise that helped balance regional power between North and South. By 1800, the city remained largely undeveloped, and the Capitol itself was still under construction—only the north wing was usable.Despite its incomplete state, the Capitol's occupation by Congress signaled the institutional maturity of the federal government. It gave physical shape to the separation of powers by housing the legislative branch in its own dedicated space, distinct from the executive and judiciary. This move also underscored the federal character of the American system, establishing a neutral location not belonging to any one state. John Adams, still president at the time, had moved into the President's House (now the White House) just weeks earlier, completing the federal trifecta.The decision to proceed with the session in an unfinished building reflected a commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law, even in the face of logistical and environmental hardships. Lawmakers contended with the muddy streets and sparse accommodations of the nascent city, yet their presence inaugurated what would become one of the most symbolically and functionally important legislative chambers in the world. This moment laid the groundwork for Washington, D.C. to become not only the seat of American government but a focal point for legal development, political conflict, and democratic debate for centuries to come.More than 500 lawsuits alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy causes autism in children may be revived, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit prepares to hear arguments from plaintiffs challenging a 2024 dismissal of their cases. A lower court had rejected the claims after finding that the plaintiffs' expert testimony lacked scientific rigor, a conclusion supported by Tylenol maker Kenvue. The plaintiffs argue the judge mischaracterized their experts' findings and are citing public support from President Trump and health officials, who linked autism to Tylenol use during a September 2025 press conference.Scientific consensus continues to hold that no definitive link exists between acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) and autism, a position echoed by Kenvue. The company is also facing a separate suit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who accuses Kenvue of concealing risks to children, though a Texas judge recently denied Paxton's efforts to halt a $398 million shareholder dividend and restrict Tylenol marketing. Meanwhile, it remains uncertain whether the appeal will impact Kimberly-Clark's pending $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, though both companies have indicated that litigation over autism claims won't derail the deal.US appeals court to weigh reviving cases over Tylenol and autism | ReutersGupta Wessler, a boutique appellate firm in Washington, D.C., known for its U.S. Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of plaintiffs, has hired Matthew Guarnieri, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Guarnieri argued 13 Supreme Court cases under both the Biden and Trump administrations and is the first attorney to leave the solicitor general's office for a firm that exclusively handles plaintiff-side appellate work. His move reflects a growing recognition of Gupta Wessler's nontraditional model, which competes with corporate-heavy appellate practices at larger firms.Guarnieri becomes the fifth principal at the 18-lawyer firm, which is currently involved in high-profile litigation, including representing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees challenging President Trump's mass firings and securing a $185 million verdict against Monsanto over chemical contamination. The firm also represents Uber passengers alleging sexual assault and recently blocked an attempt in Nevada to limit contingency fees in civil cases. Guarnieri left the DOJ in October after nine years of service; the department declined to comment on his departure.DC appellate firm picks up departing DOJ Supreme Court advocate | ReutersA federal jury in California has ordered Apple to pay $634 million to Masimo, a medical technology company, for infringing a patent related to blood-oxygen monitoring used in Apple Watches. The jury found that specific features like workout mode and heart rate notifications violated Masimo's patent rights. Apple has announced plans to appeal, arguing that the patent in question, which expired in 2022, covers outdated technology and that most of Masimo's other patent claims have been invalidated.This verdict is part of a broader legal conflict between Apple and Masimo, which accuses Apple of poaching employees and misappropriating pulse oximetry technology. In 2023, the U.S. International Trade Commission imposed an import ban on certain Apple Watch models, prompting Apple to remove the disputed feature and later reintroduce it with customs approval. A new ITC review is now underway to determine if the updated models should also be banned. The legal fight spans several courts and includes ongoing challenges from both companies over import restrictions and intellectual property claims.US jury says Apple must pay Masimo $634 million in smartwatch patent case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss recent Epstein files release, what's going on with Lindsey Halligan, 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: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonOn this day in legal history, November 14, 1922, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, a foundational case in American property law. At issue was a Pennsylvania statute—the Kohler Act—that prohibited coal mining beneath certain structures to prevent surface subsidence. The Pennsylvania Coal Company had previously sold the surface rights to a parcel of land but retained the right to mine the coal beneath. When the state blocked their ability to do so, the company sued, arguing that the law had effectively stripped them of valuable property rights without compensation. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the majority opinion.In his decision, Holmes introduced the now-famous principle that “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” This line marked the birth of the regulatory takings doctrine, which holds that government actions short of full appropriation can still require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Holmes emphasized that the economic impact of a regulation on the property owner must be weighed, not just the public interest it serves. In this case, the regulation was deemed too burdensome to be considered a mere exercise of police power.The Court sided with the coal company, holding that the Kohler Act, as applied, amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The dissent, penned by Justice Brandeis, warned against undermining states' ability to protect public welfare. Despite being a 5–4 decision, Mahon has had lasting influence on land use, zoning, and environmental regulation. It reframed the boundaries between public regulation and private rights, signaling that not all public-interest laws are immune from constitutional scrutiny. Today, Mahon remains a cornerstone case for litigants challenging regulations that significantly diminish property value.A Texas judge is set to hear arguments on Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to block Kenvue from issuing a $398 million dividend and from marketing Tylenol as safe during pregnancy. Paxton sued Kenvue in October, accusing the company of hiding risks linked to prenatal Tylenol use, including autism and ADHD—a claim not supported by the broader medical community. The lawsuit follows public comments by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoting the same unproven theory. Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson, which previously owned Tylenol, maintain the drug's safety and argue the state has no authority to interfere in federal drug regulation or corporate dividends.The companies also say the dividend will not impair Kenvue's solvency and warn that Paxton's effort could undermine both the First Amendment and the credibility of Texas courts. Paxton, however, argues that the public interest justifies intervention, citing potential future liabilities from Tylenol and talc-related lawsuits. He contends that misleading commercial speech can be regulated, and that the dividend should be halted to preserve cash in the face of those risks. The case could have broader implications, particularly for Kimberly-Clark's $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, announced shortly after the lawsuit. Kenvue has vowed to appeal any injunction.Judge to weigh if Texas AG can block Kenvue dividend over Tylenol claims | ReutersSierra Leone has reached a tentative settlement with U.S. law firm Jenner & Block to resolve a dispute over $8.1 million in unpaid legal fees. The law firm sued the West African nation in 2022, claiming it was still owed money for representing Sierra Leone in a high-stakes case against Gerald International Ltd., which had sought $1.8 billion in damages over an iron ore export ban. Jenner argued the legal work was more extensive than initially expected and said it had only been paid $3.6 million by the end of 2021.Sierra Leone pushed back, disputing the existence of a valid contract and asserting that no further payments were owed. The country also tried to claim sovereign immunity, but a federal judge rejected those arguments in January, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey announced the settlement in principle last week, although specific terms were not disclosed. Neither party has commented publicly on the resolution.Sierra Leone, law firm Jenner & Block reach settlement over $8 million legal tab | ReutersMcDermott Will & Emery has become the first major U.S. law firm to publicly confirm that it is considering private equity investment, signaling a potential shift in how Big Law might operate. The firm's chairman acknowledged preliminary talks with outside investors, a move that stunned the legal industry, where non-lawyer ownership has long been resisted due to ethical and regulatory restrictions. McDermott is reportedly exploring a structure that would separate its legal services from administrative operations by creating a managed service organization (MSO) owned by outside investors, allowing the firm to raise capital without violating professional conduct rules.This model has gained traction among smaller firms, but McDermott's adoption could legitimize the MSO approach for large firms. Proponents argue it would free lawyers to focus on client work while upgrading support systems through external funding. Critics caution that it involves relinquishing control of critical firm functions and raises concerns about maintaining ethical standards, particularly regarding fee-sharing with non-lawyers. While still early, industry experts say other firms are beginning to explore similar paths to stay competitive, especially in jurisdictions like Arizona that allow non-lawyer ownership.McDermott's Outside Investor Talks Augur Big Law TransformationThe Trump administration has filed suit against California over its recently approved congressional redistricting maps, which were adopted through a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50. The measure, passed by voters last week, allows temporary use of new district lines that could give Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats. The Justice Department joined a lawsuit initially filed by the California Republican Party and several voters, alleging that the redistricting plan was racially motivated and unconstitutional.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the maps a “brazen power grab,” accusing California of using race to unlawfully boost Hispanic voting power. California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissed the lawsuit, framing it as retaliation for California's resistance to Trump's broader political agenda. Newsom also argued that the new maps are a necessary corrective to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts, like those in Texas, where civil rights groups have sued over alleged dilution of minority voting power.The lawsuit claims California's map violates the U.S. Constitution by improperly using race in the redistricting process. The outcome could impact the balance of power in the House and add fuel to ongoing legal battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering nationwide.Trump administration sues California over new redistricting maps | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is the first movement of Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, a work that balances classical clarity with Beethoven's unmistakable wit and rhythmic drive. Composed in 1812 during a period of personal turmoil, the Eighth is often described as a cheerful outlier among his symphonies, compact and effervescent despite being written amid deteriorating health and emotional strain. It was premiered in 1814, but it was a revival performance on November 14, 1814, in Vienna that helped solidify its reputation and gave the public a second opportunity to appreciate its lightness and humor in contrast to the more dramatic works surrounding it.Unlike the grand scale of the Seventh or Ninth, the Eighth is shorter and more classical in form, often drawing comparisons to Haydn in its wit and economy. Yet Beethoven infuses it with his unique voice—syncopations, dynamic extremes, and abrupt harmonic shifts abound, particularly in the first movement. The Allegro vivace e con brio opens with a bold, playful theme, tossing melodic fragments between the orchestra with cheerful assertiveness. It's less stormy than many of Beethoven's first movements, but no less commanding.Critics at the time were puzzled by the symphony's restraint and humor, expecting more overt heroism from Beethoven. But modern listeners often recognize the Eighth as a masterwork of compression and invention. The first movement in particular plays with rhythmic momentum, frequently disrupting expectations just as they form. There's a confidence in its restraint, a knowing smile behind the forceful accents and offbeat rhythms. It's music that's both technically impressive and viscerally enjoyable, which is perhaps why Beethoven held it in especially high regard.As we close out the week, we leave you with that November 14 revival spirit—a reminder that even a “little Symphony” can land with enduring force.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Happy Brandeis DayOn November 13, 1856, Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He would go on to become one of the most influential jurists in American legal history. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson, Brandeis was the first Jewish justice and brought a deeply progressive and pragmatic philosophy to the bench. Long before his judicial career, he co-authored the seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy,” articulating a legal theory that would shape decades of constitutional interpretation. On the Court, he consistently championed civil liberties, individual privacy, and limitations on unchecked government and corporate power.Brandeis was known for his meticulous reasoning and willingness to dissent, often laying the groundwork for future majority opinions. In Whitney v. California (1927), his concurring opinion defended free speech in sweeping terms, arguing that the remedy for harmful ideas was more speech, not enforced silence—a principle that remains central to First Amendment jurisprudence. In economic cases, he frequently opposed monopolistic practices and was skeptical of concentrated financial power, earning him the moniker “the people's lawyer.” His distrust of large institutions was not ideological but rooted in a belief that democracy and individual autonomy could only flourish when those institutions were held accountable.Brandeis also advanced the use of social science and empirical data in legal arguments, exemplified by the famous “Brandeis Brief” in Muller v. Oregon (1908), which emphasized real-world facts over abstract legal theory. He believed that courts should understand the broader implications of their rulings, particularly in cases affecting labor, privacy, and civil rights. Though his views were sometimes out of step with his contemporaries, many of his ideas became mainstream in later decades. Brandeis served on the Court until 1939, leaving a legacy of principled independence and intellectual rigor.House Democrats have released emails suggesting that Donald Trump may have been aware of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of underage girls. The documents include a 2019 email in which Epstein told author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ghislaine Maxwell to “stop,” as well as a 2011 message from Epstein to Maxwell claiming Trump spent significant time at his house with one of Epstein's victims. The victim's name is redacted, but the White House says it refers to the late Virginia Giuffre, who has publicly stated that Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing.Trump has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein's crimes, emphasizing that their friendship ended years before Epstein's death in jail in 2019. The White House dismissed the email release as a politically motivated stunt and accused Democrats of constructing a “fake narrative.” Still, the controversy has stirred unease among Trump's base, with recent polling showing only 40% of Republicans support his handling of the Epstein case—far less than his usual approval ratings.Wednesday's release coincides with the swearing-in of Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, whose vote could trigger a full House vote to declassify all Epstein-related records. Democrats, led by Rep. Robert Garcia, are pushing for full transparency, alleging that attempts to conceal the files raise deeper concerns about Trump's connection to Epstein.House Democrats release Epstein papers saying Trump ‘knew about the girls' | ReutersApple says recent fee cuts for app developers in the EU, made to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have not led to lower prices for consumers. The company commissioned a study showing that developers kept prices the same or raised them for 90% of products, with only 9% seeing reductions—and those were consistent with typical pricing trends, not fee changes. Most of the financial benefit from reduced commissions, totaling €20.1 million, went to non-EU developers.Apple argues this undermines the DMA's goal of helping consumers and fostering competition, instead creating new hurdles for startups and potential risks for users. The European Commission has not yet commented. The DMA targets tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, aiming to level the playing field and offer users more choice.Developer fee cuts not passed on to EU users, Apple says | ReutersGoogle has filed a federal lawsuit in New York aiming to dismantle an international phishing operation it claims originated in China. According to the complaint, the group used software called “Lighthouse” to impersonate entities like Google, the U.S. Postal Service, and E-ZPass, sending fake text messages that tricked users into revealing sensitive personal and financial information. Nearly 200,000 fraudulent websites were allegedly created in just 20 days, targeting over a million people across more than 120 countries.Google accuses the 25 unnamed defendants of trademark infringement, false advertising, and racketeering, and is seeking financial damages as well as legal orders to shut the scheme down in the U.S. The company estimates the group may have stolen between 12.7 million and 115 million U.S. credit card numbers. Google's general counsel also backed proposed federal legislation to strengthen protections against similar scams.Google sues in New York to break up text phishing scheme | 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: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990On November 12, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into law, enacting one of the most ambitious environmental regulatory packages in U.S. history. The amendments addressed a broad range of air quality concerns, including acid rain, smog in urban areas, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the time, the legislation was notable for its bipartisan support and its embrace of both traditional regulation and market-based solutions. Among its most innovative features was the introduction of a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This program placed a national cap on emissions and allowed utilities to buy and sell allowances, incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices.The legislation also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 189 toxic air pollutants, a massive expansion from the original eight. It required cleaner gasoline in high-pollution areas and set deadlines for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. States were mandated to submit detailed plans for meeting federal air quality standards, significantly increasing local accountability. The law established a new operating permit system for major sources of air pollution, centralizing compliance efforts. It also increased civil and criminal penalties for violators and expanded the public's right to sue polluters and the government for non-enforcement.The amendments reflected growing public concern about environmental degradation and represented a turning point in how the federal government approached pollution control. By pairing stricter standards with economic incentives, the 1990 law helped redefine regulatory strategy in environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary pause on a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown. The administration is currently withholding approximately $4 billion from the program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who initially granted the pause, stated she would have denied the request to extend it further. The pause is now set to expire Thursday, though an end to the shutdown could render the legal fight moot. Meanwhile, the Senate has approved a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history. The lapse in SNAP funding marks the first such disruption in the program's six-decade existence, prompting recipients to rely on food pantries and cut back on essential expenses like medications.US Supreme Court extends pause on order requiring Trump to fully fund food aid | ReutersThree former senior enforcement officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched a new legal initiative aimed at holding corporations accountable in the absence of federal action. The project, backed by the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, will focus on bringing strategic lawsuits against companies accused of exploiting consumers, workers, and small businesses. The team—Eric Halperin, Cara Petersen, and Tara Mikkilineni—previously held top roles at the CFPB before it was effectively sidelined by the Trump administration.The CFPB's enforcement and supervision functions were largely dismantled this year, leaving a vacuum in consumer protection at the federal level. In response, consumer advocates and state officials have begun stepping in to fill the enforcement gap. Halperin emphasized that rising corporate profits alongside deepening financial stress for ordinary Americans is no coincidence, pointing to a lack of oversight that enables corporate misconduct to go unchecked.Former top enforcers at US watchdog join project to bring pro-consumer lawsuits | ReutersThe NCAA has agreed to a $303 million settlement to resolve claims from over 7,700 current and former Division I coaches who say they were illegally denied pay under a now-repealed policy that barred compensation for so-called “volunteer” coaches in all sports except baseball. Filed in federal court in Sacramento, the proposed class action settlement still requires approval from U.S. District Judge William Shubb. If approved, no coach will receive less than $5,000, with average payouts expected to be around $39,260 before fees, and some six-figure awards anticipated.The plaintiffs argued the NCAA and its member schools violated antitrust laws by maintaining the compensation ban, a rule repealed in 2023. The NCAA denies wrongdoing but said the deal provides “certainty and clarity.” The lawyers representing the coaches plan to seek up to 30% of the settlement—around $90.9 million—in legal fees. This case follows a $49 million NCAA settlement with baseball coaches over similar claims and comes amid broader legal pressure on the NCAA, including a pending $2.8 billion settlement allowing schools to pay student-athletes directly.NCAA agrees to $303 million settlement with unpaid college coaches | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Mexico's latest attempt to crack down on value-added tax (VAT) invoice fraud—and why it misses the mark. The new measure shifts enforcement burdens onto digital platforms like Amazon and eBay, criminalizing them for fraud they are neither equipped nor authorized to detect. Instead of building a real-time fiscal invoicing system that validates transactions as they occur, the government is digitizing enforcement without changing the underlying system that enables fraud in the first place.False VAT invoice fraud in Mexico typically involves shell companies, or factureras, issuing legally compliant but entirely fictitious receipts that allow taxpayers to inflate deductions or claim improper refunds. The fraud takes root not in shady ads or informal platforms, but in a tax infrastructure that fails to verify the legitimacy of transactions in real time. Despite having a digital identity framework and certified validators in place, more than 8,000 shell entities have used these tools to issue fake invoices that are indistinguishable from valid ones.The government's move to deputize digital platforms sidesteps the real problem: the lack of a transactional choke point where the buyer, seller, and tax authority all converge—namely, the point of sale. Countries like Brazil and Italy have shown that embedding validation at checkout prevents fraud from scaling. Until Mexico adopts this kind of infrastructure, enforcement efforts will continue to target the periphery while the core system remains vulnerable.Mexico Effort to Curtail VAT Fraud Needs Real-Time Verification 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: Armistice DayOn November 11, 1918, World War I came to an end with the signing of the Armistice between the Allies and Germany. While not a legal instrument in the treaty sense, the armistice was a binding agreement that had massive legal and geopolitical ramifications. Its terms, including a cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of German forces, and surrender of military equipment, were enforced by military and diplomatic means, laying the groundwork for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The legal aftermath of the war led to the creation of new nation-states, redrawn borders, and the first formal attempt at international governance through the League of Nations.November 11 would later be recognized in the United States as Veterans Day, originally commemorated as Armistice Day, reflecting the legal shift from honoring only WWI veterans to recognizing all who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The legal transition occurred in 1954 when President Eisenhower signed legislation formally renaming the holiday. The legal framework surrounding veterans' benefits also expanded post-WWI, with landmark legislation like the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and its subsequent reauthorizations, shaping how the U.S. compensates military service.Internationally, the armistice also contributed to legal debates over war guilt and reparations, particularly with Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles—the so-called “War Guilt Clause”—which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. That clause became a flashpoint in both legal and political discussions and was later cited by Germany as a grievance contributing to the rise of Nazism and WWII.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis had argued that her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shielded her from liability, but lower courts rejected that defense, awarding damages and attorneys' fees exceeding $360,000 to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. The Sixth Circuit found that Davis's actions constituted state action, not protected private conduct, and that she could not invoke her own constitutional rights to infringe on the rights of others while acting in an official capacity.Davis had also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing it rested on the same substantive due process doctrine as Roe v. Wade, which the Court overturned in 2022. However, the justices declined to take up that issue, just as they had in 2020. The Court's refusal to revisit Obergefell signals a reluctance, at least for now, to reexamine established rights to same-sex marriage, even as the bench remains deeply conservative.US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage right | ReutersSenior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by President Reagan in 1985, announced his resignation in order to publicly oppose what he describes as President Donald Trump's abuse of legal authority. In an article for The Atlantic, Wolf accused Trump of weaponizing the law against political enemies while shielding allies, a pattern he claims contradicts the principles he upheld over five decades in the Justice Department and on the bench. Wolf cited Trump's direction to Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict political opponents, including New York AG Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as especially troubling.Wolf expressed frustration over the ethical constraints on judges that prevent them from speaking out publicly, saying he could no longer remain silent as Trump undermined the rule of law and dismantled oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and the FBI's public-corruption unit. His resignation comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, underscored by combative rhetoric at a recent Federalist Society event. Wolf, who had previously criticized the handling of ethics complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas, said he now plans to support litigation and advocacy efforts to protect democratic norms and defend judges unable to speak for themselves.Reagan Judge Says He Quit Bench to Speak Out Against TrumpThe Trump administration has significantly shortened the time between publicly announcing judicial nominees and holding their Senate confirmation hearings, in some cases to as little as two days—far less than the typical 28-day window used by past administrations. While the Senate Judiciary Committee still adheres to its rule requiring 28 days between receiving nominee questionnaires and hearings, the White House now delays public disclosure until much later in the process, often after nominees have cleared internal background checks. Critics argue this reduces transparency and limits public scrutiny of lifetime judicial appointments, while supporters claim the process is efficient and appropriate given the nominees' qualifications.Some nominees, like Louisiana district court picks William Crain and Alexander Van Hook, received swift hearings with little controversy, though others, like appellate nominee Emil Bove, drew public concern during the brief window between announcement and hearing. Observers also criticized the administration's choice to reveal nominees via Trump's Truth Social account, often late at night, bypassing traditional press channels. Legal experts suggest this shift reflects a strategic move to minimize opposition and accelerate confirmations, but it has alarmed advocacy groups who say it undermines public trust and democratic norms.Trump Changes How Judicial Nominees Get Publicly Revealed This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Social Security AmendmentsOn November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program's previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law's legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn't be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | ReutersLarge and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | ReutersDemocrats ended a record-long government shutdown without securing their primary goal: the extension of health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Despite initial unity, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans to advance a bill reopening the government on its 40th day, omitting the sought-after healthcare provisions. In return, they received only a vague promise of a future vote on the subsidies, a concession many in the party, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and leaders in the House, criticized as a strategic failure.The decision has sparked internal party conflict, especially after Democrats had recently seen electoral gains tied to their affordability messaging. Some Democrats believed holding out longer might have forced Republican concessions, but others, like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, argued prolonging the shutdown would only harm the public. The failed push is reminiscent of past shutdowns, including Trump's 2018-19 border wall standoff, where policy goals were ultimately abandoned after prolonged disruption.Air travel chaos and delayed food aid added pressure to end the shutdown, with more than 10,000 flights affected and warnings of a near-complete travel halt ahead of Thanksgiving. While public opinion largely blamed Republicans for the impasse, Democrats now hope to leverage the upcoming healthcare vote in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. The fate of the tax credits—and potentially rising premiums for 24 million Americans—will likely become a defining campaign issue. The shutdown technically continues as the Senate and House still need to finalize and pass the bill before President Trump can sign it.Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in HandPresident Donald Trump has issued pardons to at least 77 individuals connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and other close allies. The pardons, outlined in a proclamation dated Friday, were framed by Trump as an attempt to end a “grave national injustice” and promote “national reconciliation.” These actions come amid ongoing investigations into the fake elector scheme that aimed to keep Trump in power after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden—a plan Trump and his allies continued to promote until his 2024 re-election.While Trump himself had been federally indicted in connection with the elector plot, that case was dismissed after his re-election, citing the Justice Department's policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The pardons only apply to federal charges and do not shield recipients from state-level prosecutions, which remain active in some jurisdictions. The White House has not publicly commented on the latest round of pardons, many of which were not formally announced.Included in the list of recipients are legal and political figures such as John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Boris Epshteyn, all of whom played public roles in contesting the 2020 results. The full number of individuals pardoned could be even higher, as the list may include unnamed individuals.Trump pardons Giuliani and dozens of others accused of seeking to overturn his 2020 defeat | 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 discuss the oral arguments over Trump's tariffs which are now being heard before the Supreme Court, Dick Cheney's legacy, 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: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida's 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon's attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump's domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump's Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump's law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer's equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn's defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident, expressed relief and said he believed his actions defended immigrant rights. The presiding judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case mid-trial but ultimately left the decision to the jury, which rejected the prosecution's claim that the act met the legal threshold for assault.Sandwich Hurler Acquitted of Assault Charge in Viral DC Case (2)U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits (food aid) for 42 million low-income Americans by Friday, rejecting the administration's plan to issue reduced payments during the ongoing government shutdown. McConnell sharply criticized the administration for what he described as using food aid as a political weapon, and warned of irreparable harm if full benefits were not provided, including hunger and overwhelmed food pantries.The USDA had initially planned to suspend benefits entirely in November due to a lack of congressional funding. It later proposed covering only 65% of benefits using limited contingency funds—an option McConnell said was inadequate and failed to address administrative challenges, such as outdated state computer systems unable to process reduced payments. Some states estimated it would take days to weeks to reconfigure their systems for partial payouts.McConnell said the administration should instead use a $23.35 billion tariff fund—previously used for child nutrition—to fully fund November benefits. His ruling followed a related case in Boston, where another judge also found that the government was legally obligated to use available emergency funds to keep food aid flowing.The Trump administration appealed the ruling and blamed Senate Democrats for blocking a funding bill that would end the shutdown. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the court's decision as “absurd,” framing it as interference in a political stalemate.Trump administration must fully fund food aid benefits by Friday, US judge rules | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week marks the anniversary of the death of Tchaikovsky, who passed away on November 6, 1893 according to the Gregorian calendar—November 7 on the Julian calendar still used in Russia at the time. His death, just days after the premiere of his Sixth Symphony (Pathétique), remains a subject of speculation and sorrow in classical music history. In honor of that date, we're closing the week with one of his earlier and more intimate works: the String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11.Composed in 1871, the quartet was Tchaikovsky's first major chamber piece and reflects his growing confidence outside the orchestral realm. Though best known for sweeping ballets and symphonies, here Tchaikovsky demonstrates a delicate sense of form and emotional restraint. The second movement, “Andante cantabile,” became especially beloved—Leo Tolstoy reportedly wept when he heard it performed.Unlike his dramatic orchestral works, this quartet offers a quiet depth, full of folk-inspired melodies and lyrical interplay between the instruments. It balances elegance with melancholy, a quality that would come to define much of his later music. Tchaikovsky himself cherished the piece, often arranging and revisiting it throughout his career. The “Andante cantabile” was even played at his own memorial.As we mark November 7, it's fitting to reflect on the more introspective side of a composer whose life and death still stir emotion more than a century later. Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 doesn't shout—it speaks gently, as if in conversation, and in that quiet voice, it endures.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11 – 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: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (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: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to DeathOn November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The charges stemmed from the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail, an act of collective punishment after an assassination attempt on Hussein. The verdict came after a year-long trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, a special court established to prosecute former members of Saddam's regime. The proceedings were highly controversial, drawing criticism for their fairness, security lapses, and political interference.Saddam's defense team faced threats and attacks, with several lawyers murdered during the trial. International human rights organizations expressed concern over the tribunal's procedures, noting a lack of due process protections. Despite these criticisms, the court found Hussein guilty and sentenced him to death. His co-defendants, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bandar, also received death sentences. Saddam remained defiant throughout the trial, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the court and accusing it of being a tool of occupation.The sentence was upheld on appeal and carried out swiftly, with Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006. His execution, filmed and leaked online, sparked outrage and deepened sectarian tensions in Iraq. Many saw the trial and its aftermath as exacerbating divisions rather than promoting justice and reconciliation. The event marked a pivotal moment in Iraq's post-invasion legal and political reconstruction, highlighting both the possibilities and limits of transitional justice in a conflict-ridden environment.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law not originally intended for such use. The case stems from lawsuits by affected businesses and 12 mostly Democratic-led states, claiming Trump's application of IEEPA to impose tariffs violated constitutional limits, as Congress—not the president—holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. The law has traditionally been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions during national emergencies, not to regulate routine trade.Trump's administration has defended the tariffs as a national security measure and emphasized their economic impact, having generated nearly $90 billion in revenue. The president has pressured the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to uphold his interpretation of IEEPA, warning that overturning the tariffs would leave the nation vulnerable. If struck down, the administration intends to pursue the tariffs through other legal avenues.Critics argue the case reflects broader concerns about Trump's expansion of executive power, as IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court ruled against Trump, stating that Congress likely did not intend to hand the president such broad trade authority and invoking the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive power absent clear congressional approval. The justices' decision will test their willingness to check presidential overreach and could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in economic policy.Supreme Court weighs legality of tariffs in major test of Trump's power | ReutersSupreme Court Confronts Trump's Power to Disrupt World Trade (1)The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Joshua Dunlap, to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marking a significant shift for the Boston-based court that had, until now, consisted solely of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The confirmation vote was 52-46, largely along party lines. This is Trump's first successful appointment to the 1st Circuit, long viewed as a legal roadblock to many of his policies due to its liberal composition.Dunlap, a conservative litigator from Maine, has a background in challenging progressive state laws, including Maine's ranked-choice voting system and paid family leave policies. He previously interned with the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom and has expressed personal views critical of abortion and same-sex marriage in past public writings. During his confirmation hearing, he maintained that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions.The vacancy Dunlap fills opened when Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, assumed senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez for the seat, but her confirmation stalled before the end of his term. With this appointment, Trump gains a foothold in a court that has played a central role in legal challenges against his administration, and which could now shift incrementally rightward.Senate confirms Trump's pick to join liberal-majority US appeals court | ReutersA federal appeals court appeared doubtful of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence tied to the collapse of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange. During oral arguments, judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether the trial judge's exclusion of certain defense evidence truly compromised the fairness of the proceedings. One judge asked if, by not disputing the strength of the evidence, Bankman-Fried was effectively conceding its sufficiency.Bankman-Fried's legal team argued that even if the jury had enough evidence to convict, the judge's decisions about what evidence to allow still denied him a fair trial. Specifically, they claimed the jury never saw key materials that could have supported Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had the funds to honor customer withdrawals.Prosecutors pushed back, emphasizing that the government's case was overwhelming. They noted that three insiders testified they conspired with Bankman-Fried to misappropriate customer funds, and documents corroborated their accounts. Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire and crypto industry figurehead, was convicted in 2023 on seven counts, including fraud and conspiracy, for stealing $8 billion from users.At sentencing, the judge said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted illegally but underestimated the risk of being caught. Though some close to him have reportedly sought a presidential pardon, Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated in a low-security facility in California and is eligible for release in 2044.Appeals court skeptical of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to toss crypto fraud conviction | ReutersGoogle and Epic Games announced a settlement in their years-long legal dispute over app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. While the full terms were not made public, the agreement follows a 2023 jury verdict in favor of Epic, which found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by securing exclusivity deals with phone makers and app developers to lock them into its Play Store.The settlement arrives as Google was already under a court order to restructure aspects of its app store. U.S. District Judge James Donato had previously mandated that Google stop favoring its own services and allow developers more freedom, including steering users to cheaper payment options outside the Play Store. He also required Google to provide app catalog access to rivals to support competition.Under the new agreement, many of Donato's requirements remain, but with modifications. Instead of full catalog access, “registered app stores” will now receive equal treatment to the Play Store, and commission fees for off-store purchases are capped at either 9% or 20%, depending on the transaction. Both companies told the court that negotiations involved top executives and were prompted by the court's pressure.The settlement also resolves Epic's related litigation against Samsung. Executives from both companies described the agreement as a step toward greater developer freedom and a more open Android ecosystem. Google emphasized user safety and developer flexibility, while Epic praised the deal as a return to Android's open platform roots.Google, Epic Games Settle Yearslong Legal Fight Over App Store 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: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, marking one of the most extreme expressions of religious intolerance in early American colonial history. The law required all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the true and authoritative Word of God. Failure to do so was not merely frowned upon—it was made a capital offense. This legislation reflected the theocratic underpinnings of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which had been established by Puritans seeking religious freedom for themselves but not necessarily for others.The Puritan leadership equated dissent with disorder, and heresy with treason against divine authority. The law was aimed particularly at groups such as Quakers, Baptists, and others who challenged orthodox Puritan theology. While it is unclear whether anyone was actually executed under this specific statute, it laid the foundation for later persecution, including the execution of Mary Dyer, a Quaker, in 1660. The law exemplifies how early colonial governments wielded both civil and religious authority in tandem.It also foreshadows the centuries-long struggle in American legal and cultural history to define the boundaries between church and state. Though the U.S. Constitution would later enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment, this 1646 law demonstrates how precarious that freedom was in earlier periods. The harshness of the law also underscores the broader context of 17th-century Europe and its colonies, where religious uniformity was often enforced through state power. Massachusetts would gradually shift away from such punishments, but not without considerable resistance.Sam Bankman-Fried's legal team will argue before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his conviction for defrauding FTX customers should be overturned. The 33-year-old former crypto executive is currently serving a 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2023 of stealing $8 billion from FTX users. His lawyers claim the trial judge unfairly excluded key evidence—specifically, information supporting Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had sufficient assets to cover customer withdrawals. Prosecutors counter that the evidence against him, including internal records and testimony from former associates, was overwhelming.Bankman-Fried was once considered a leading figure in the crypto space, known for his high-profile donations and media presence before his downfall. During the trial, former executives at FTX and Alameda Research testified that he instructed them to misuse customer funds to cover hedge fund losses. He was convicted of two fraud counts and five conspiracy charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sentenced him in March 2024, said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted criminally but underestimated the risk of detection. There are also unconfirmed reports that some in his circle are lobbying Donald Trump for a pardon, though Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated at a low-security facility in California and is expected to be released in 2044.Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyers to argue for new fraud trial for FTX founder | ReutersGetty Images has largely lost its high-profile UK lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind the image-generating tool Stable Diffusion. Getty had accused Stability AI of copyright infringement, claiming the AI system was trained on millions of its images without permission. However, Getty dropped the core part of the case mid-trial due to insufficient evidence about where and how the AI was trained, leaving that central legal question unresolved. The remaining claims focused on trademark infringement and secondary copyright violations.The High Court ruled that Getty partially succeeded on the trademark issue, noting Stable Diffusion sometimes generated images that included Getty's watermark. But the judge emphasized that this finding was historically narrow and of limited scope. Getty's broader copyright claim was dismissed, with the court finding that Stable Diffusion does not store or directly reproduce copyrighted works. Legal experts called the ruling disappointing for copyright holders and warned it exposed gaps in UK intellectual property protections regarding AI.Both companies claimed aspects of victory: Getty pointed to the trademark ruling and the recognition that AI models can be subject to IP laws, while Stability AI emphasized that the decision effectively cleared the core copyright concerns. Getty warned the decision highlights the difficulty even well-funded companies face in protecting creative works and urged governments to strengthen transparency rules around AI training data. Legal analysts say the ruling leaves a major legal question unresolved—whether training AI on copyrighted content without consent constitutes infringement under UK law.Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator | ReutersPennsylvania lawmakers are advancing a regulatory and fee-based proposal targeting “skill games”—arcade-style gambling machines—without first resolving the legal and oversight framework surrounding them. Senate Bill 1079, introduced by Senators Gene Yaw and Anthony Williams, proposes a $500 monthly fee per machine, capped at 50,000 terminals, potentially raising $300 million annually. However, I argue that this revenue-driven approach puts fiscal goals ahead of sound regulation. The bill includes some regulatory provisions like machine limits, ID checks, and a centralized monitoring system, but these appear to have been crafted after the fee structure, not as foundational policy.Skill games have operated in a legal gray area since a 2023 court ruling found they don't meet the state's definition of gambling devices. That ambiguity has persisted, leaving the machines largely unregulated but widespread. Instead of clarifying the legal status of these machines and building a regulatory framework first, lawmakers now seem focused on monetizing them quickly—potentially to preempt a stricter tax plan proposed by Governor Shapiro. The bill notably keeps enforcement under the Department of Revenue rather than the more experienced Gaming Control Board, raising questions about effective oversight.This structure may incentivize the rapid deployment of machines to meet revenue goals, risking poor compliance and ineffective safeguards. In sum, I go on to say the proposal uses regulation to justify revenue collection, rather than using revenue to support a robust regulatory system. Without a clear legal definition, licensing process, and proper enforcement authority, the current plan prioritizes money over governance.Pennsylvania Skill Game Fee Regulations Have Questionable Timing 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

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Landecker to talk about the latest legal entertainment news, including a potential Spotify lawsuit.

This Day in Legal History: Elk v. WilkinsOn November 3, 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Elk v. Wilkins, ruling that Native Americans were not automatically U.S. citizens under the Constitution. The case involved John Elk, a Native American who had left his tribal affiliation and tried to register to vote in Omaha, Nebraska. He argued that by assimilating into American society and residing outside his tribe, he had placed himself under U.S. jurisdiction and thus should be granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Court disagreed, holding that Native Americans born into tribal nations were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the sense required by the 14th Amendment unless naturalized through an act of Congress.This decision legally excluded Native Americans from the rights and protections afforded to other Americans, including the right to vote and equal protection under the law. It reinforced a system in which Native identity and U.S. citizenship were treated as mutually exclusive. While the Dawes Act of 1887 later allowed certain Native Americans to obtain citizenship by accepting land allotments and assimilating, this was a piecemeal and coercive process. True universal birthright citizenship for Native Americans was not granted until 1924, with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, which declared all Native Americans born in the U.S. to be citizens.The Elk decision underscores the deep contradictions in American legal history regarding sovereignty, race, and citizenship, and it illustrates how constitutional protections were unequally applied. It remains a key moment in understanding the legal marginalization of Indigenous peoples in the United States.Daniel Ginzburg, a solo practitioner based in New Jersey, will argue his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, going up against renowned litigator Lisa Blatt. Ginzburg, who runs his practice with just a laptop and Dropbox, turned down offers from major law firms—including Blatt's own—to retain control over the case and seize the rare opportunity to appear before the justices. His case centers on a procedural issue: whether a default judgment entered against his client, Coney Island Auto Parts, by a Tennessee bankruptcy court should be vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction.The underlying dispute involves a $48,696 debt related to bankruptcy proceedings filed by Vista-Pro Automotive in 2014. Ginzburg argues that the judgment was void from the start, but the Sixth Circuit denied relief, ruling his client's challenge came too late—a position that conflicts with other federal appellate courts. This circuit split helped pave the way for Supreme Court review.Ginzburg, who emigrated from the former Soviet Union and graduated from St. John's School of Law, took the case on a contingency basis after years of litigation. Despite the steep odds and high-profile opposition, he has spent months preparing, including mock arguments with law professors. Blatt, representing the bankruptcy trustee, argues that Ginzburg's client had years to object and failed to act in time.Ginzburg remains focused on the procedural integrity of the system, saying his motivation is simple: “I wanted to win.” Yet even if successful, the case could be remanded for further proceedings in bankruptcy court.NJ Solo Practitioner to Face Lisa Blatt in Supreme Court DebutFBI Director Kash Patel forced out a senior official, Steven Palmer, who oversaw the bureau's aviation operations, shortly after online scrutiny emerged over Patel's use of an FBI jet to attend a personal event. Patel's trip to State College, Pennsylvania—where his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins, performed the national anthem—was revealed through publicly accessible flight data and Patel's own social media posts. Following the media attention, Palmer, a 27-year FBI veteran and acting head of the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), was told to resign or be fired. Though FBI directors are required to use government aircraft for security reasons, the optics of Patel's travel sparked criticism, especially given his past remarks condemning similar behavior by former directors.Palmer's firing marks the third leadership ouster within CIRG under Patel, reinforcing a pattern of high-level dismissals since his appointment. His predecessor, Brian Driscoll, is among a group of former officials suing the administration for allegedly retaliatory terminations tied to perceived political disloyalty. The FBI's leadership page now lists Devin Kowalski, previously head of the San Juan office, as the new CIRG chief—a change that was reportedly planned before the jet controversy. Patel's spokesman defended the director's travel practices as compliant and cost-conscious, dismissing criticism as politically motivated.FBI Ousts Leader as Patel Fumes Over Attention to Agency Jet UseA federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the Trump administration to immediately resume food assistance payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), despite an ongoing government shutdown. Judge John J. McConnell ruled that full benefits must be paid by Monday or, at the very least, partial payments must begin by Wednesday. He criticized the administration's refusal to use $5.25 billion in congressionally approved contingency funds, calling the decision arbitrary and emphasizing the irreparable harm caused by payment delays to millions of low-income Americans.The administration had claimed it lacked authority to distribute the funds during the shutdown, which began on October 1, but McConnell rejected this argument. He noted that Trump himself had previously issued guidance during his first term stating that contingency funds could be used in such scenarios. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he does not want Americans to go hungry and directed his lawyers to seek clarity on funding SNAP legally, which the judge cited approvingly in his order.In addition to the Rhode Island case, another federal judge in Boston ruled similarly in a separate lawsuit brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, saying the administration was wrong to assert it couldn't use contingency funds. The USDA previously warned it may not have enough money to cover November benefits, which cost up to $9 billion monthly. Judge McConnell suggested the agency could also tap into a separate $23 billion fund if needed.Trump administration must pay food aid benefits within days, judge says | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—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: October ManifestoOn October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma's consent.Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia's first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma's actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration's recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump's Alaska MovesThree former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department's September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley's deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department's stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | ReutersEli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.The move is part of Lilly's broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk's Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo's earlier market entry.Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today's digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It's time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal 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: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government's role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina's appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina's economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California's Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli's continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli's tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli's appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting' US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI's use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature's name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora's ‘Cameo' feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol's current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm's effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state's approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas' case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism 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: Volstead ActOn October 28, 1919, the Volstead Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto, laying the legal foundation for Prohibition in the United States. Formally titled the National Prohibition Act, the law was intended to provide for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment, which had been ratified earlier that year and prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors.The Volstead Act, named after Representative Andrew Volstead of Minnesota who introduced it, defined what constituted “intoxicating liquors”—a key point of contention. It set the threshold at anything containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume, thereby banning even beer and wine, which many Americans had not expected to be included. The law also outlined penalties and enforcement mechanisms, giving the federal government new policing powers.Prohibition officially began in January 1920, sparking a surge in bootlegging, speakeasies, and organized crime. While intended to curb alcohol consumption and related social problems, the law instead fueled a vast illicit economy. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for Prohibition declined steadily throughout the 1920s.The Volstead Act remained in effect until the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933, marking the only time a constitutional amendment has been entirely undone by a subsequent amendment. The legacy of the Volstead Act lingers in ongoing debates about federal regulation, moral legislation, and the limits of enforcement.In a push to speed up electricity access for the fast-growing data center sector, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has directed federal energy regulators to consider a rule that would streamline how new projects connect to the electric grid. The proposed rule, sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), would allow customers to file combined requests for both energy demand and generation at the same site—cutting study times and costs. Wright also asked FERC to explore completing grid project reviews within 60 days, a sharp departure from the years-long timelines currently common.This move comes as U.S. power demand rises sharply, largely due to artificial intelligence workloads, prompting the Trump administration to seek expanded capacity, particularly from fossil fuel and nuclear sources. Though the Energy Secretary cannot compel FERC to act, the Republican-led commission will now weigh the proposals. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute praised the initiative as a necessary step to stay competitive, while environmental advocates criticized the fast-tracked timelines as reckless, especially during a government shutdown.Wright also urged FERC to ease the permitting process for hydroelectric development, drawing praise from the hydropower industry, which sees regulatory delays as a major barrier to growth. The proposals reflect the administration's strategy to meet surging energy demand quickly, though they raise concerns about environmental oversight and procedural rigor.US pushes regulators on connecting data centers to grid | ReutersTexas's new Business Court, launched in September 2024 across five major cities, is quickly becoming a boon for law firms, attracting a wave of high-stakes commercial litigation and prompting staffing increases. Major firms like Jackson Walker, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Baker Botts are leading the charge, with over 220 cases already filed—far exceeding early expectations. The court, designed to compete with Delaware's Court of Chancery and bolster Texas's business-friendly reputation, is drawing interest from corporate giants like AT&T, BP, and Exxon Mobil.Lawyers are treating the venue as a prestige arena for complex business disputes, and firms are responding by hiring, publishing guides, and producing media content to market their expertise. For example, Norton Rose launched a video series on court developments, while Haynes Boone created an internal task force to track rule changes.The court's promise of faster timelines—often under 18 months compared to multi-year waits in traditional courts—is one of its major selling points. Judges are aiming to build out a body of corporate case law to make Texas a viable alternative to Delaware for resolving business disputes. Despite no trials yet, over three dozen cases are jury-bound in the next year, signaling strong demand. The court's rapid rise suggests it could reshape where and how major commercial litigation happens in the U.S.Law Firms Join Early Winners in ‘Very Hot' Texas Business CourtThe head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal worker union, is urging Senate Democrats to help end the nearly month-long government shutdown—the second longest in U.S. history. AFGE President Everett Kelley called for an immediate reopening of the government through a “clean” short-term funding bill, aligning with a version passed by the Republican-controlled House in September.Democrats have resisted that approach, instead demanding that Republicans first agree to renew subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Kelley's statement increases pressure on Democrats, as federal employees begin to feel the financial strain—many missed their first full paycheck last week, and essential services like food aid and air traffic control are being impacted.Kelley also called for guaranteed back pay for all affected workers and urged bipartisan efforts to fix the broken appropriations process and address rising costs. A senior Senate GOP aide noted the union's position might signal a turning point in negotiations, potentially encouraging Democrats to reconsider the short-term funding route.Federal Worker Union Calls to End Shutdown, Pressuring DemocratsMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Italy's decision to raise its flat tax on wealthy foreign residents—a move that reflects the unsustainability of luring the rich with short-term tax deals. Italy isn't backtracking because its plan failed outright; it's doing so because it succeeded just long enough to paper over a deeper revenue gap. The original policy, a 100,000-euro annual payment to exempt new wealthy residents from foreign income taxes, was a bold but limited solution that boosted luxury markets without delivering long-term fiscal stability. Now, Italy is bumping that fee up to 300,000 euros by 2026 to keep the scheme afloat.That's a warning for the U.S., where the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act followed a similar path—offering generous upfront tax cuts to high earners with no lasting funding mechanism. Rather than building resilience into the tax system, both countries are layering short-term relief on top of structural deficits, leaving future policymakers to scramble for temporary fixes. I argue for automatic sunset provisions that scale back preferential tax treatment when equity or revenue metrics worsen, allowing tax codes to serve as stabilizers instead of giveaways. Metrics like tax revenue as a share of GDP or the Gini coefficient could trigger phaseouts without requiring political intervention.Italy's flat tax is a case study in what happens when fiscal policy becomes a subscription model for the wealthy: the price keeps going up, and the returns diminish. The U.S. is running a version of the same play, just with fewer disclosures and rosier assumptions. 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: Copyright Act of 1976On October 27, 1978, key provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 officially took effect, modernizing U.S. copyright law for the first time in nearly 70 years. Although signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the Act delayed implementation of its core provisions until this date to allow for public and institutional adjustment. The law marked a major shift in how copyright was conceived, particularly by aligning U.S. law more closely with international standards.One of the most important changes was the extension of copyright protection to unpublished works, which had previously existed in a murky legal space. The Act also introduced the concept of works being protected once they were “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”, rather than requiring publication or registration, making protection more automatic and accessible. It moved away from the fixed-term system—previously 28 years with a renewal—toward a life-plus-50-years standard for most works, further updated to life-plus-70 years in 1998.Additionally, the law provided for fair use codification, laying out a four-factor test still used by courts today. It also clarified authorship and ownership rights, especially in the context of work-for-hire arrangements, and created clearer paths for compulsory licensing of certain works, including music.The Copyright Act of 1976 thus ushered in a more author-centric and technologically adaptive framework. It was designed with an eye toward the emerging digital era, even though it predates the internet. The Act remains the backbone of American copyright law today, regularly referenced and amended as new challenges arise.What I guess could be broadly considered a feel-good story, Isaac Stein's pivot from federal tax attorney to full-time hot dog vendor during the government shutdown is equal parts charming and quietly damning. With the IRS idled and thousands of public workers furloughed, Stein has taken his sidelining as an opportunity to live out a childhood dream — running a hot dog cart named SHYSTERS, complete with Moon Pies, RC Cola, and a slogan that reads, “The Only Honest Ripoff in D.C.” Wearing his usual business suit, he blends satire and performance art while serving construction workers, telecommuters, and other locals near the D.C. Metro.What began as a quirky weekend hobby has become a daily operation thanks to the indefinite work stoppage. Stein, 31, brings a regulatory lawyer's precision to the permitting process and a people person's flair to sidewalk commerce, referencing old-school D.C. aesthetics and childhood nostalgia with every dog he serves. Customers who can explain the cultural significance of RC Cola and Moon Pies even get a nickel off — an appropriately ironic twist in a city where billions of dollars are stuck in limbo.But the charm of this setup — a suit-clad lawyer slinging hot dogs under a punny sign — shouldn't distract from the underlying issue: Stein, like hundreds of thousands of other federal workers, is benched not by choice but by political dysfunction. He can afford to make it into an art project; others can't. The shutdown has real economic and emotional consequences, and not everyone has the resources or flexibility to turn lost income into a pop-up business. As clever and good-humored as SHYSTERS is, it also reminds us that “doing something fun” is not a substitute for stable governance or paychecks that come on time.Washington lawyer on furlough lives out dream of running a hot dog cart | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has appointed Michael Selig as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), signaling a continued push to make the U.S. a global hub for digital assets. Selig, currently the CFTC's chief counsel for its crypto task force, confirmed his selection alongside David Sacks, the White House's lead official for AI and crypto policy. Both praised the move as aligning with broader goals to modernize financial regulations and support innovation in digital markets.Selig stated he would prioritize freedom, competition, and innovation while helping establish the U.S. as the “Crypto Capital of the World.” His appointment follows a series of pro-crypto policy moves under Trump, including passage of the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts, both aimed at creating clearer regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies.Selig replaces Brian Quintenz, whose stalled nomination was reportedly derailed by lobbying efforts from Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss. The episode highlighted tensions within the crypto industry over regulatory leadership. Selig brings both public and private sector experience to the role, having previously worked at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher before joining the CFTC in March 2025. His appointment reflects the administration's continued alignment with digital asset advocates and its willingness to reshape financial oversight around emerging technologies.Trump names Michael Selig to chair CFTC; Selig cites crypto capital goal | ReutersExxon Mobil has filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging two newly enacted climate disclosure laws that require large companies to publicly report greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In its complaint filed in federal court, Exxon argues that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling it to endorse views on climate reporting it disagrees with. The company contends that California's mandated frameworks are misleading, unnecessary, and conflict with existing voluntary disclosures and federal regulations.SB 253, set to take effect in 2026, targets companies earning over $1 billion annually and requires them to report both direct and indirect emissions — including those from suppliers and consumers. SB 261 applies to firms with over $500 million in revenue and mandates disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Exxon says the laws amount to forced speech and overreach by the state, particularly given the overlap with federal disclosure requirements.While tech giants like Apple, Ikea, and Microsoft backed the legislation, major industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation opposed it, calling the mandates burdensome. California has defended similar environmental policies in the past, but the outcome of this case could shape how far individual states can go in regulating corporate climate disclosures, especially when federal standards already exist.Exxon sues California over climate disclosure laws | 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: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon's objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers' unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press' White House access. Grijalva's legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father's office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva's Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James' team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week's closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family's musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year's galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.'s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, 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: PATRIOT Act IntroducedOn October 23, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3162, the bill that would become the USA PATRIOT Act. Officially titled the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” the legislation represented one of the most significant expansions of domestic surveillance and law enforcement powers in modern U.S. history. The bill was drafted rapidly, largely by the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft, and was introduced with bipartisan support.Key provisions of the act included expanded authority for wiretaps, the ability to access business and personal records through National Security Letters, and increased surveillance of internet and email communications. Section 215, in particular, allowed the government to obtain “any tangible things” relevant to a terrorism investigation, a phrase later scrutinized for its vagueness. Civil liberties organizations quickly raised concerns about the law's impact on privacy, due process, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.Despite these objections, the bill moved swiftly through Congress. The House passed it on October 24, and the Senate followed on October 25. President George W. Bush signed it into law on October 26, 2001. In the years that followed, the PATRIOT Act would become a focal point in debates over national security versus individual rights, particularly as revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA surfaced in the 2010s.Some provisions were later challenged in court, amended by Congress, or allowed to expire. Nevertheless, the PATRIOT Act reshaped the legal framework for counterterrorism in the U.S., leaving a legacy still felt in debates over surveillance, transparency, and executive power today.Several major lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., posted record or near-record revenues in the third quarter of 2025, driven by policy shifts under President Donald Trump and rising client demand for regulatory guidance. Ballard Partners led the surge, reporting a 400% year-over-year increase and nearly $25 million in lobbying revenue. Other top performers included BGR Group ($19.1 million), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck ($18.9 million), Holland & Knight ($13.9 million), and Hogan Lovells ($4.4 million), each claiming their best quarter yet.The increase in lobbying activity was largely fueled by the Trump administration's aggressive moves on tariffs, trade, and the implementation of a sweeping tax-and-spending bill signed in July. Lobbyists noted that even during the early October government shutdown, regulatory deadlines such as public comment periods on tariffs kept work moving. Akin Gump reported $16.3 million, its best third quarter ever, and K&L Gates earned $5.4 million.Overall lobbying expenditures have continued to climb, with companies spending over $2.53 billion by late July 2025. Industries like pharmaceuticals, health products, and tech accounted for a significant share of that spending, reflecting ongoing regulatory and legislative uncertainty.Lobbying firms record 3rd quarter gains amid Trump policy shifts | ReutersPaul Ingrassia, nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, withdrew from consideration after losing Republican support in the Senate. He announced his withdrawal ahead of a scheduled confirmation hearing, citing an insufficient number of GOP votes. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had already postponed a prior hearing in August amid growing concerns.Senate Republicans distanced themselves from Ingrassia after Politico published alleged chat messages from him. His connections to controversial figures — including his legal work for Andrew Tate and attendance at a rally for White nationalist Nick Fuentes — drew additional scrutiny. Senator Thom Tillis labeled him “unfit to serve,” and Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the nomination was unlikely to move forward.The Office of Special Counsel plays a crucial role in enforcing civil service protections, particularly amid Trump's push to reshape the federal workforce. It also oversees Hatch Act compliance, which limits political activity by federal employees. With the Merit Systems Protection Board now restored, a new nominee will be needed to confront upcoming legal battles over career employee protections.Trump's Special Counsel Nominee Withdraws After GOP BlowbackIn Delaware court, tensions escalated between bidders and creditors over who should win control of Citgo Petroleum's parent company, PDV Holding, as part of a court-ordered auction aimed at compensating creditors tied to Venezuela's defaults and expropriations. The case, which has dragged on for eight years, now faces a decisive moment after three bidding rounds.A $5.9 billion offer from Amber Energy, affiliated with Elliott Investment Management, has been recommended by the court-appointed auction officer. However, Citgo's legal team and Venezuelan representatives argue the offer is too low, especially compared to a $7.9 billion bid from a Gold Reserve subsidiary. They also allege flaws in the auction process itself.Amber's bid includes a key side deal to pay $2.1 billion to holders of a disputed Venezuelan bond, making timing crucial since the agreement expires in early December. Gold Reserve, on the other hand, seeks to distribute more of the proceeds among a wider group of creditors, raising concerns over whether bondholders should benefit at all given unresolved legal questions about the bond's validity.Judge Leonard Stark also heard motions from Venezuela and Gold Reserve to disqualify him, court officer Robert Pincus, and two advisory firms over alleged conflicts of interest. The U.S. Treasury Department's approval is still required to finalize the auction, and both the Maduro government and Venezuela's opposition oppose the sale.Bidders, creditors battle in US court over who should win Citgo auction | 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

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: US Naval Blockade of CubaOn October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a televised address announcing that the United States would impose a naval “quarantine” on Cuba. This action followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missile installations on the island, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. The announcement marked the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a 13-day standoff that brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before. In his address, Kennedy framed the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba as a direct threat to American national security and international peace. He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union, prompting a full retaliatory response.The legal foundation for the blockade, while not formally declared an act of war, was justified under the collective security framework of the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.S. sought and received OAS backing to frame the blockade as a multilateral action rather than a unilateral act of aggression. Over the next six days, the world watched as U.S. Navy ships encircled the island, intercepting Soviet vessels bound for Cuba. Behind the scenes, intense diplomatic negotiations unfolded between the White House and the Kremlin.Ultimately, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. public pledge not to invade Cuba and a secret agreement to remove American missiles from Turkey. The crisis ended without military conflict, but it exposed the fragility of Cold War-era deterrence. The blockade, while effective, raised unresolved legal questions about executive war powers, international law, and the role of regional organizations in legitimizing force. It also led directly to the establishment of the “hotline” between Washington and Moscow and spurred negotiations for the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.President Donald Trump responded to reports that he is seeking $230 million from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal costs tied to federal investigations, stating he is not personally involved in the request but would donate any awarded money to charity. The New York Times reported that Trump is pursuing compensation, alleging the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump claimed he has not been in direct contact with his lawyers about the matter but believes the DOJ owes him for what he called unfair treatment related to election interference investigations.Trump has filed two administrative claims—typically a precursor to a lawsuit. One challenges the FBI and special counsel's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The other concerns the FBI's 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, during which classified documents were seized, and accuses the DOJ of malicious prosecution and privacy violations.The filings mark a notable reversal, as Trump now leads the federal government that previously investigated him. A DOJ spokesperson stated that any potential conflicts in reviewing the claims would be handled according to ethics guidance from career officials.Trump says Justice Department owes him money, vows to donate any payout to charity | ReutersThe state of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. House of Representatives over the delay in swearing in Democrat Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election to replace her late father, Representative Raul Grijalva. Although Speaker Mike Johnson has said she will be sworn in when the House reconvenes, he has not called lawmakers back to Washington, citing the ongoing government shutdown and the Senate's failure to pass a resolution.Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes argues in the suit that the delay violates the Constitution by preventing a duly elected representative, who meets all legal qualifications, from assuming office. The state is asking a judge to recognize Grijalva as a House member upon taking the oath, even allowing someone other than Johnson to administer it if necessary.Speaker Johnson dismissed the lawsuit as “absurd,” insisting the House controls its own procedures and accusing Mayes of seeking publicity. With three vacancies, the current House makeup is 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats. Once sworn in, Grijalva would slightly narrow that margin to 219-214.Arizona contends the delay is politically motivated, aimed at stopping Grijalva from supporting a petition that would force a vote on a bill requiring the release of all unclassified documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from the Trump administration. Grijalva herself has accused Johnson of silencing her district to protect political allies and obstruct justice for Epstein survivors.Arizona sues US House over delay in swearing in Democrat Grijalva | ReutersApple has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a lower court ruling that restricts its ability to collect commissions on certain app purchases. The request follows a contempt finding by District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled in April that Apple had violated her previous 2021 order by continuing to impose indirect restrictions on alternative payment systems for app developers. That earlier order came out of a lawsuit filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, which sought to loosen Apple's control over in-app transactions.In the appeals hearing, Apple's attorney argued that the district judge went too far by expanding the original injunction, and insisted that Apple deserves to be compensated for developers' access to its ecosystem. Apple claims it followed the original court order but maintains it has a right to impose a fair commission, including on external purchases. After Apple removed prior restrictions, it introduced a new 27% fee on purchases made outside its App Store if the user clicked a link within the app—prompting Epic to argue that Apple is still undermining the court's intent.Judge Smith of the appellate panel expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the new injunction, suggesting the stakes run into billions of dollars. Epic's attorney countered that Apple shouldn't get another chance to justify its commission practices after allegedly misleading the lower court. The district judge also referred Apple and an executive to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation.A decision from the appeals court is expected in the coming months, and the case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court if further appealed.Apple asks US appeals court to lift app store restrictions in Epic Games case | ReutersSEC Chairman Paul Atkins is advancing a fast-track strategy to implement deregulatory changes without going through the full rulemaking process, which often takes a year or more and is vulnerable to legal challenges. Appointed under President Trump, Atkins is using policy statements, guidance memos, and interpretations of existing law to relax corporate disclosure rules, restrict shareholder proposals, and expand companies' ability to divert investor fraud claims into mandatory arbitration.For instance, the SEC recently issued guidance allowing companies to include arbitration clauses in their filings—avoiding formal rulemaking while significantly altering investor rights. Similarly, Atkins has encouraged companies to reject environmental and social shareholder proposals under Delaware law, without a formal vote by SEC commissioners. Critics, including Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, argue this approach sidesteps transparency and due process.While Atkins plans to propose new rules on shareholder resolutions and corporate disclosures by April 2026, current changes are being made through interpretations and enforcement discretion. This comes amid a government shutdown that has furloughed most of the SEC's staff, further limiting the agency's capacity to pursue traditional rulemaking.Atkins has also voiced support for eliminating quarterly reporting and scaling back executive compensation disclosures. However, even if rules are adopted, their durability is uncertain. Previous SEC rules—such as Biden-era climate disclosures and Gensler-era hedge fund regulations—have faced legal reversals. Experts note that rules with bipartisan support and grounded in market efficiency are more likely to survive than politically motivated ones.SEC Chief Fast Tracks Agenda, Averting Slog Through Rule Changes 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: Abrams v. United States ArguedOn October 21, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Abrams v. United States, a seminal case in the development of First Amendment jurisprudence. The case arose during the post–World War I Red Scare, when the government aggressively prosecuted speech perceived as dangerous or subversive. The defendants were Russian immigrants who distributed leaflets in New York City denouncing U.S. military intervention in the Russian Revolution and calling for a general strike. They were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for allegedly inciting resistance to the war effort.The Supreme Court upheld their convictions in a 7–2 decision, finding that the speech posed a “clear and present danger” to national security. However, it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dissent, joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, that left the most lasting impression. Holmes argued that only speech intended to produce imminent lawless action should be punished, introducing the enduring metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” as essential to democratic deliberation.Legally, the case illustrates the government's ability to impose post-speech punishment—penalties after speech has occurred—as opposed to prior restraint, which involves preventing speech before it happens. The distinction is vital in American law: prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional, while post-speech sanctions may be permitted under narrow circumstances. In Abrams, the Court leaned toward deference to governmental wartime authority, but Holmes' dissent marked the beginning of a shift toward greater speech protections.The decision laid the groundwork for the more speech-protective standards adopted in later cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The post-speech punishment principle debated in Abrams remains a cornerstone of First Amendment law, highlighting the tension between state interests and individual liberties in times of political conflict.When two alleged drug traffickers survived a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, the Trump administration immediately repatriated them rather than detain them — a decision that reveals a troubling logic behind the president's new “war” on narco‑terrorism. The administration has declared the campaign a “non‑international armed conflict,” but legal experts note that this classification offers no real authority for military detention. In other words, the United States can kill suspects under this self‑declared war framework, but it has no clear legal footing to hold survivors.Experts said the administration likely chose the least damaging option: send the survivors home and avoid a courtroom. Detaining them at Guantanamo or on U.S. soil would have triggered habeas corpus challenges, forced disclosure of evidence, and risked exposing the strikes as legally indefensible. One former State Department lawyer said any trial would have “undermined the narrative” that the attacks were lawful military operations. By refusing to hold prisoners, the administration sidesteps both judicial scrutiny and transparency.The result is a perverse incentive structure. If survivors are released but detainees are liabilities, the easiest path for officials is to ensure there are no survivors at all. The legal asymmetry—where killing is simpler than capture—encourages tactics that maximize lethality while minimizing accountability. As a result, Trump's “drug war” risks becoming less about law enforcement and more about ensuring that no one lives long enough to challenge the legality of U.S. actions.In Trump's drug war, prisoners may be too much of a legal headache, experts say | ReutersGlobal pharmaceutical companies are rapidly ramping up U.S. manufacturing in response to a looming Trump administration policy that would impose 100% tariffs on imported branded and patented drugs. While enforcement is delayed for companies that commit to domestic investment, the threat has already triggered a wave of fast-tracked spending, direct-to-consumer sales shifts, and pricing concessions in exchange for temporary tariff exemptions.Major players like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, and Roche have pledged tens of billions of dollars to build or expand plants across the U.S. to shield themselves from future penalties. Some, like Pfizer and AstraZeneca, secured multi-year tariff exemptions by agreeing to pricing deals and participation in the administration's new TrumpRx.gov program. Others, like Novartis and Sanofi, are spreading investments across multiple states and sites, creating thousands of jobs as part of their strategic insulation.The tariff threat is driving a major reshaping of global supply chains and investment strategies, as companies aim to avoid the legal and financial burden of import duties by domesticating both manufacturing and distribution. While some firms say they are already well-positioned with sufficient U.S. inventory, the broader trend reflects a defensive industry-wide shift to preemptively comply with the administration's protectionist push.Global drugmakers rush to boost US presence as tariff threat looms | ReutersTrevor Milton, the disgraced founder of electric-truck startup Nikola, is somehow back as a CEO—this time leading SyberJet Aircraft, a private jet manufacturer, according to reporting by Techdirt. Milton was convicted of fraud for deceiving investors about Nikola's technology, most famously releasing a misleading video of a prototype truck that was actually rolling downhill, not self-propelled. He was sentenced to four years in prison but never served a day, thanks to a pardon from Donald Trump earlier this year—reportedly after donating millions to Trump-aligned causes and hiring the brother of current Attorney General Pam Bondi as his attorney.Now, just months after that pardon, Milton has been tapped to lead development of a new high-speed jet for SyberJet, with promised performance metrics that already sound suspiciously ambitious. The company, privately backed, won't need to answer to public shareholders—but it will still need investor trust to raise money for a jet not slated for delivery until 2032. TechDirt points out how the company's promotional material leans into rewriting Milton's history, calling him “renowned” rather than acknowledging the full scope of his fraudulent past.The piece underscores a broader theme of “failing upward,” highlighting how white-collar offenders, especially white men with political connections, often land on their feet despite serious criminal convictions–and has some interesting implications for the future career of George Santos. Milton's quick rebound from federal fraud conviction to C-suite leadership is less an exception than a reminder of how accountability gaps persist in American corporate culture.Convicted Fraudster Trevor Milton Rides His Trump Pardon To Another CEO Job, Somehow | TechdirtIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I dive in to the governor's race in my home state. The 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial race has become a tax-policy showdown between Jack Ciattarelli and Mikie Sherrill—both of whom are framing affordability as their central mission, but doing so with deeply flawed approaches. Ciattarelli is offering aggressive tax cuts and structural overhauls that are, frankly, reckless in a state with a delicate and complicated fiscal ecosystem. His plan to flatten income tax brackets and slash corporate rates isn't just optimistic—it's ahistorical. We've seen this movie before in Kansas, where sweeping tax cuts led to revenue collapse, credit downgrades, and bipartisan regret. Ciattarelli is essentially proposing a rerun, but with no clearer escape plan if it fails.Sherrill, by contrast, is pragmatic to the point of inertia. Her emphasis on municipal service sharing and administrative tweaks is fine as far as it goes—but it doesn't go very far. Her promise to freeze utility rates via emergency powers, for instance, isn't just legally questionable, it also misdiagnoses the issue: state governments don't control wholesale energy prices. It's a symbolic gesture dressed up as policy.Neither candidate seems willing to address the structural drivers of New Jersey's notoriously high property taxes, preferring instead to nibble around the edges or promise caps that could backfire. That's a missed opportunity. As I argue in the column, New Jersey doesn't need sweeping cuts or more bureaucratic tinkering—it needs targeted relief for the people who actually feel the pinch. Expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and implementing a robust child tax credit would offer immediate, evidence-backed help to those struggling most with affordability. These aren't radical ideas; they're already working in other states.Ciattarelli's plan is built on trickle-down economics and wishful math. Sherrill's is built on competent management, but lacks ambition. The voters deserve more than either of those options.Tax Platforms in NJ Governor's Race Leave Out the Best Ideas 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: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements 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: Al Capone ConvictedOn October 17, 1931, notorious gangster Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in federal court, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. Capone, who had risen to national infamy during Prohibition as the head of a sprawling Chicago crime syndicate, had long evaded prosecution for his violent and illegal enterprises. Despite widespread public knowledge of his role in bootlegging, extortion, and murder, prosecutors struggled to tie him directly to any of those crimes. Instead, federal investigators, led by Treasury Department agent Frank J. Wilson, focused on Capone's lavish lifestyle and failure to file income tax returns.The government's case rested on a novel legal theory at the time: that even illegally obtained income was subject to federal taxation. This approach was upheld by the Supreme Court in prior decisions and proved decisive in Capone's prosecution. During trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of Capone's expenditures and testimony from witnesses who detailed his earnings, none of which had been declared to the IRS. The jury found him guilty on five counts of tax evasion.Capone was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, fined $50,000, and charged nearly $30,000 in court costs and back taxes. He was denied bail and began serving time in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta before being transferred to Alcatraz in 1934. His conviction not only marked the downfall of one of America's most feared mob bosses but also cemented the IRS's role in fighting organized crime. The case showcased the growing power of the federal government in regulating and prosecuting financial crimes.Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted on charges of sharing classified government information, including top-secret material, with two relatives identified by sources as his wife and daughter. The indictment alleges Bolton transmitted over a thousand pages of sensitive information—gleaned from high-level meetings and intelligence briefings—between 2018 and 2025, with discussions indicating the material might be used in a book project. He referred to his relatives as his “editors” and communicated with a publisher about potential rights. Bolton has denied wrongdoing, stating he looks forward to defending himself and accusing Trump of abuse of power. His attorney maintains no classified information was unlawfully shared or stored.The case is part of a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has pursued indictments against multiple critics, including James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has actively pushed for such prosecutions, and concerns have been raised about the politicization of the Justice Department. Still, officials note Bolton's case began in 2022 and involves more substantial evidence. Bolton's personal email was reportedly hacked by an actor tied to the Iranian government, which further complicated the case, though he allegedly failed to report the storage of classified material. If convicted, Bolton faces up to 10 years per count under the Espionage Act.John Bolton, former Trump adviser, charged with sharing classified information | ReutersThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The lawsuit, brought in Washington, D.C., argues that the fee—announced by Trump in a September proclamation—exceeds the president's legal authority and threatens to destabilize the visa system established by Congress. This marks the Chamber's first legal action against the Trump administration since his second term began in January.The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers, particularly in fields like technology and engineering. Companies typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 per H-1B petition, with most applications costing under $3,600. The newly announced fee would significantly raise costs for employers, potentially forcing them to reduce their reliance on foreign talent or abandon the program altogether.Trump justified the fee by citing national and economic security concerns, claiming the H-1B program facilitates the replacement of American workers. The Chamber disputes that, arguing the fee is not an immigration restriction because employers—not foreign nationals—pay it. The policy is also facing another legal challenge in California from unions, religious groups, and employers. Business leaders warn that the fee will exacerbate labor shortages and harm U.S. competitiveness.Major US business group sues over Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee | ReutersNew Jersey filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, seeking to halt sales of its P320 handgun within the state over allegations that the weapon can fire without the trigger being pulled. Filed in Sussex County state court, the lawsuit claims the company marketed the pistol as safe while knowing of a design flaw that allows for unintentional discharges. The complaint cites several such incidents, including the fatal shooting of a detective lieutenant in April 2023 as he was preparing to clean his P320.The state is seeking a mandatory recall of all P320s sold in New Jersey and a court order to ban further sales of the model. The lawsuit invokes product liability, consumer fraud, and public nuisance laws, marking the first time a government entity has sued over this issue, according to Attorney General Matthew Platkin. At a press conference, Platkin accused Sig Sauer of promoting the handgun's safety while omitting information about its known risks.Sig Sauer has denied the P320 can fire on its own, blaming incidents on user error. Still, the company has faced numerous lawsuits from civilians and law enforcement officers nationwide and has paid out millions in damages. New Jersey's suit claims the P320's design allows it to be fully cocked with a chambered round and that minor movement can activate the internal striker, causing it to discharge unexpectedly—especially dangerous for law enforcement officers who carry the firearm holstered and ready.New Jersey sues Sig Sauer, alleging handguns fire on their own | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.Frédéric Chopin, the Polish composer and virtuoso pianist, died on October 17, 1849, at the age of 39 in Paris. Though his life was brief, his influence on Romantic music—and piano literature in particular—has been profound and enduring. Chopin composed almost exclusively for solo piano, blending technical innovation with a deeply expressive, often introspective voice. Among his most beloved works is the Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2, composed when he was just 20.This piece exemplifies Chopin's signature style: lyrical, ornamented melodies floating over a gently rocking accompaniment. It unfolds in a graceful ternary form, inviting both performer and listener into a world of delicate melancholy and understated virtuosity. The Nocturne's opening theme returns with increasingly elaborate embellishment, showcasing Chopin's genius for subtle variation and emotional nuance. Though brief, the piece captures a vast interior world—what Robert Schumann once described as “cannons buried in flowers.”Chopin's nocturnes elevated the genre from salon entertainment to high art, and the Nocturne in E-flat major remains a favorite among pianists and audiences alike. Its enduring popularity testifies to Chopin's ability to transform a simple melody into something timeless. That he died on this day in 1849 makes this day an especially fitting moment to revisit his music, which continues to resonate with quiet power over 175 years later.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2 – 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: 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