Podcasts about legalnews

Judge Jeanine Pirro is TAKING CHARGE. Now serving as D.C. District Attorney, she’s leading a powerful new DOJ investigation into Andrew Cuomo’s alleged COVID nursing home cover-up. The walls may finally be closing in on the former New York Governor.Meanwhile, powerhouse attorney Alina Habba isn’t done yet—she’s reportedly preparing more legal action against Democrats accused of obstructing law enforcement at the New Jersey ICE facility. Another Democrat Rep is now meeting with Habba today over possible charges.And Letitia James? She’s on defense. Caught trying to explain away her alleged mortgage fraud, the New York AG was grilled last night—just as President Trump dropped new bombshell comments about her.All this and more in today’s LIVE edition of The Trish Regan Show. Subscribe now: https://youtube.com/TrishReganChannel✅ Become a TEAM MEMBER for exclusive access & perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join

The Trump administration has actually impaneled a grand jury to investigate Letisha James for that real estate deal we talked about a couple weeks ago. Trump fired the FEMA Chief.The Postal Board appointed a new Postmaster General.A federal judge ruled AGAINST Trump's January 6th pardons covering unrelated crimes.Pete Hegseth had another super bad week.The Mayor of Newark was arrested outside an ICE facility.Plus, we have some Giuliani news.Thank you, CBDistillery! Use promo code CLEANUP at  CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. 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

Breaking: Bryan Kohberger's New Court Orders #BryanKohberger, #BreakingNews, #KohbergerCase, #CourtOrders, #TrueCrimeUpdate, #LegalNews

This Day in Legal History: “Law Day” is BornOn this day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation that did more than just slap a new label on the calendar—it attempted to reframe the ideological narrative of the Cold War itself. With Presidential Proclamation 3221, Eisenhower officially designated May 1 as Law Day, a symbolic counterweight to May Day, the international workers' holiday long associated with labor movements, socialist solidarity, and, in the American imagination, the creeping specter of communism.What better way to combat revolutionary fervor than with a celebration of legal order?Pushed by the American Bar Association, Law Day wasn't just a feel-good civics moment; it was a strategic act of Cold War messaging. While the Soviet bloc paraded tanks through Red Square, the U.S. would parade its Constitution and wax poetic about the rule of law. In short, May Day was about the workers; Law Day was about the lawyers—and the system they claimed safeguarded liberty.But this wasn't just symbolic posturing. In 1961, Congress gave Law Day teeth by writing it into the U.S. Code (36 U.S.C. § 113), mandating that May 1 be observed with educational programs, bar association events, and a national reaffirmation of the “ideal of equality and justice under law.”Cynics might call it Constitution cosplay. Advocates call it civic literacy.Either way, Law Day has endured. Each year, the President issues a formal proclamation with a new theme—ranging from the judiciary's independence to access to justice. The ABA leads events, schools hold mock trials, and the legal community gets a rare day in the spotlight.In the grand tradition of American holidays, Law Day may not come with a day off or department store sales. But it's a reminder that the U.S. doesn't just celebrate its laws when it's convenient—it does so deliberately, and sometimes, geopolitically.A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 injunction meant to promote competition in its App Store by improperly restricting developers' payment options. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple defied her prior order in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. The judge referred Apple and its vice president of finance, Alex Roman, to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt investigation, citing misleading testimony and willful noncompliance. She emphasized that Apple had treated the injunction as a negotiation rather than a binding mandate.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the ruling as a win for developers and said Fortnite could return to the App Store soon. Apple had previously removed Epic's account after it allowed users to bypass Apple's in-app payment system. Despite the ruling, Apple maintains it made extensive efforts to comply while protecting its business model and plans to appeal. Epic argued that Apple continued to stifle competition by imposing a new 27% fee on external purchases and deterring users through warning messages. The judge rejected Apple's request to delay enforcement of her ruling and barred the company from interfering with developers' ability to communicate with users or imposing the new fee.US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store | ReutersPalestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University graduate student and longtime Vermont resident, was released from U.S. immigration custody after a judge ruled he could remain free while contesting his deportation. The case stems from the Trump administration's efforts to remove non-citizen students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, arguing such activism threatens U.S. foreign policy. Mahdawi, who was arrested during a citizenship interview, has not been charged with any crime. Judge Geoffrey Crawford found he posed no danger or flight risk and compared the political environment to McCarthy-era crackdowns on dissent.Crawford emphasized that Mahdawi's peaceful activism was protected by the First Amendment, even as a non-citizen. Mahdawi was greeted by supporters waving Palestinian flags as he denounced his detention and vowed not to be intimidated. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision, accusing Mahdawi of glorifying violence and supporting terrorism, although no evidence or charges of such conduct were presented in court.Members of Vermont's congressional delegation condemned the administration's actions as a violation of due process and free speech. Mahdawi's release was seen as a symbolic blow to broader efforts targeting pro-Palestinian foreign students, while others in similar situations remain jailed. Columbia University reaffirmed that legal protections apply to all residents, regardless of citizenship status.The relevant takeaway here revolves around the First Amendment rights of non-citizens – Judge Crawford's ruling affirmed that lawful non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. This principle was central to Mahdawi's release, reinforcing the legal standard that political expression—even controversial or unpopular—is not grounds for detention or deportation.Palestinian student released on bail as he challenges deportation from US | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco is set to consider a critical legal question in ongoing copyright disputes involving artificial intelligence: whether Meta Platforms made "fair use" of copyrighted books when training its Llama language model. The case, brought by authors including Junot Díaz and Sarah Silverman, accuses Meta of using pirated copies of their work without permission or payment. Meta argues that its use was transformative, enabling Llama to perform diverse tasks like tutoring, translation, coding, and creative writing—without replicating or replacing the original works.The outcome could significantly impact similar lawsuits filed against other AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic, all hinging on how courts interpret fair use in the context of AI training. Meta contends that its LLM's use of copyrighted material is covered under fair use because it generates new and transformative outputs, rather than duplicating the authors' content. Plaintiffs argue that this type of use violates copyright protections by extracting and repurposing the expressive value of their works for commercial AI systems.Technology firms warn that requiring licenses for such training could impede AI innovation and economic growth. Authors and content creators, on the other hand, view the unlicensed use as a threat to their financial and creative interests.Judge in Meta case weighs key question for AI copyright lawsuits | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appears sharply divided over whether states can prohibit religious charter schools from receiving public funding, in a case that could significantly alter the legal landscape for church-state separation in education. The case centers on Oklahoma's rejection of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School's bid to become the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that excluding religious schools constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, while liberal justices emphasized the importance of maintaining a secular public education system.Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a crucial swing vote. He questioned both sides, at times referencing prior rulings favoring religious institutions, but also signaling discomfort with the broader implications of authorizing religious charter schools. Justice Sotomayor raised hypothetical concerns about curriculum control, such as schools refusing to teach evolution or U.S. history topics like slavery.The case could affect charter school laws in up to 46 states and has implications for federal charter school funding, which mandates nonsectarian instruction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, increasing the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave Oklahoma's decision to block St. Isidore intact without setting a national precedent.This case hinges on the constitutional balance between prohibiting government endorsement of religion (Establishment Clause) and ensuring equal treatment of religious institutions (Free Exercise Clause). The justices' interpretations of these principles will guide whether public funds can support explicitly religious charter schools.Supreme Court Signals Divide on Religious Charter Schools - Bloomberg 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

The Defense Has Lost Again in the Kohberger Case #BryanKohberger, #KohbergerTrial, #DefenseLoss, #TrueCrime, #CourtroomUpdate, #LegalNews

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana PurchaseOn this day in legal history, April 30, 1803, the United States signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty with France, dramatically altering the legal and territorial landscape of the country. The treaty, signed in Paris by American envoys Robert Livingston and James Monroe, officially transferred approximately 828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River from French to American control. President Thomas Jefferson, though uncertain whether the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorized such a land acquisition, ultimately supported the deal, citing the necessity of expanding the republic and securing trade access to the port of New Orleans.The purchase, which cost $15 million (roughly four cents an acre), effectively doubled the size of the United States and set a precedent for executive power in foreign affairs. It raised important legal questions regarding the role of the executive branch, the powers of Congress, and the interpretation of constitutional authority in territorial expansion. The acquisition also intensified debates over the expansion of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples, both of which would become central legal and political issues throughout the 19th century.In addition to expanding national territory, the Louisiana Purchase laid the groundwork for the exploration and legal organization of new states. Soon after, Congress passed legislation governing how the territory would be divided and admitted into the Union. This required new legal frameworks for property rights, governance, and federal versus state authority in previously foreign lands.The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether Oklahoma can fund a religious charter school—the first case of its kind. At issue is the state's attempt to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a K-12 online institution run by two Catholic dioceses, using public funds. A state court previously blocked the school, ruling it would act as a “governmental entity” and violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion.The school's supporters, including Oklahoma's governor and President Trump, argue that denying the school solely because it is religious constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, opponents, including the state's attorney general, warn that the move would amount to taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination and could erode public education standards, particularly around non-discrimination.Charter schools in Oklahoma are considered public entities, which complicates claims that St. Isidore would operate as a private, independent institution. Organizers maintain that contracting with the state doesn't make the school an arm of the government. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could redefine the boundaries between church and state in education.The legal element worth highlighting here is the Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Clause tension—the case tests how far states can go in accommodating religious institutions without endorsing them. This clash sits at the core of modern debates about public funding and religious liberty. Under the current Supreme Court composition, it is likely we will see an expansion of the former at the cost of the limits in the latter. US Supreme Court mulls legality of milestone religious charter school | ReutersGoogle CEO Sundar Pichai is set to testify in a high-stakes antitrust trial where the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to break up parts of Google's business to restore competition in online search. The DOJ is urging the court to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and stop paying major tech partners like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their devices. Prosecutors argue these deals entrench Google's monopoly and hinder innovation, especially as search overlaps more with emerging generative AI tools like ChatGPT.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has already found that Google maintains a dominant position in the search market with no real rivals. The government is also asking the court to make Google share search data with competitors to level the playing field. Google, in response, claims that such measures would harm user privacy and undercut smaller partners like Mozilla that depend on Google funding.Pichai is expected to argue that the proposed remedies would have unintended consequences across the tech ecosystem. Google has already made some adjustments, allowing phone makers to pre-install alternative search and AI apps, but it still plans to appeal any adverse ruling. The case could have sweeping implications for the future of search, digital competition, and AI integration online.Google CEO Sundar Pichai to take the stand at search antitrust trial | ReutersPresident Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to coordinate free legal defense for police officers accused of misconduct. The order calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to organize pro bono support from private law firms, aiming to protect officers who, in the administration's view, face "unjust liability" for actions taken in the line of duty. Though the order doesn't name specific firms, it expands Trump's broader effort to harness the legal industry to support his administration's priorities.This follows recent agreements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms—including Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis—to commit $940 million worth of pro bono work to causes the administration endorses, such as veterans' services and combating antisemitism. Critics, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and 20 Democratic state attorneys general, have raised concerns about political pressure and lack of transparency in how these firms were selected and what they've agreed to.The order also calls for improved pay and training for police while denouncing efforts to “demonize law enforcement.” Critics warn this could undermine accountability and place pressure on firms to align their legal services with political goals. Meanwhile, some firms have publicly stated they will maintain control over their pro bono work, even as Trump claims the right to “use” them for administration-selected causes.Trump executive order seeks law firms to defend police officers for free | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I examined President Trump's renewed push to replace income taxes with tariffs, particularly targeting relief for Americans making under $200,000. The idea sounds populist, but it's economically misleading. Tariffs, after all, are simply hidden taxes that show up in the form of higher prices on imported goods. For lower- and middle-income Americans—those Trump claims to want to help—this shift would likely increase, not reduce, their financial burden.The proposal doesn't change the amount of money the government needs—just where it's extracted. Instead of the IRS, the “bill collector” becomes stores, suppliers, and foreign producers, with consumers footing the bill at checkout. Trump's approach, I argue, banks on the psychological difference between writing a tax check and absorbing incremental price hikes, though the economic effect is the same.Historically, tariff-based revenue systems led to inequality and volatility—conditions that helped inspire the adoption of the income tax through the Sixteenth Amendment. And practically speaking, tariffs simply cannot generate the hundreds of billions needed to sustain modern federal programs. Relying on them also cedes revenue control to foreign exporters, which undermines national fiscal stability.Ultimately, this policy doesn't tackle the real issue—Americans' frustration with a high cost of living. Instead, it disguises taxation while dodging the deeper structural question of who should be paying more. I emphasized that real reform must address not just how taxes are collected, but also the fairness of who bears the burden.Trump Continues To Push Idea Of Replacing Income Tax With TariffsSpecial ThanksStephanie Himel-Nelson, Jennifer Porter Law, PLLC 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: Los Angeles RiotsOn April 29, 1992, the Los Angeles riots erupted following the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, an African American motorist. The brutal 1991 beating had been captured on video and widely broadcast, leading to public outrage. However, when a largely white jury in suburban Simi Valley found the officers not guilty of assault and use of excessive force, it sparked immediate and widespread unrest. Over six days, riots, looting, arson, and violence resulted in more than 60 deaths, thousands of injuries, and nearly $1 billion in property damage. The events prompted a national conversation about police accountability, racial injustice, and the legal standards for the use of force.Legally, the case led to significant developments: the U.S. Department of Justice later brought federal civil rights charges against the officers, resulting in two convictions. The riots also accelerated efforts to reform policing practices, sparked lawsuits, and influenced federal legislation concerning police oversight. The King case remains one of the most prominent examples in American legal history where video evidence, jury perception, and civil rights law collided in dramatic fashion.On Monday, U.S. law firm Jenner & Block is asking a federal judge to permanently block an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that penalizes the firm for its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in the Russia investigation. Trump's order, issued on March 25, aims to restrict Jenner's access to federal facilities and terminate government contracts held by its clients. Jenner argues the order violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Republican appointee, in Washington. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — have also sued to block similar executive orders. So far, judges have temporarily halted major parts of Trump's orders in these cases. The broader context involves Trump's pressure campaign against law firms he views as politically opposed. Meanwhile, other major firms have pledged significant pro bono support to White House causes to avoid being targeted. Jenner is also suing the administration over its actions concerning transgender rights and agency funding freezes.US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a list within 30 days of cities and states that are not complying with federal immigration laws. The move escalates Trump's ongoing battle against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This follows a federal judge's recent decision blocking the administration from withholding funds from these jurisdictions. Trump officials highlighted a sharp drop in illegal border crossings since he took office, though deportations have fallen compared to Biden's administration. ICE detention centers are over capacity, leading the government to prepare facilities like Fort Bliss and to continue using Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention. Separately, controversy arose after a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly helping a defendant avoid immigration authorities, an action defended by the Trump administration. Despite divided public opinion, Trump's immigration policies maintain relatively strong approval ratings compared to his handling of other issues.Trump to sign order requiring list of sanctuary cities, states, official says | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if Congress wants professional sports to be more equitable, accountable, and less reliant on taxpayer subsidies, it should rethink a looming tax change that would punish the Atlanta Braves—the only MLB team subject to full public oversight. A new cap on salary deductions for public companies under Section 162(m) is set to take effect in 2027, and while not aimed directly at sports teams, it would hit the Braves with an estimated $19 million annual tax hike. Meanwhile, billionaire-owned private teams would continue enjoying deduction benefits without similar transparency obligations.I explain that public ownership brings clear benefits: the Braves are required to file audited financials, face investor scrutiny on major spending decisions, and have less flexibility to threaten cities with relocation demands. Unlike private ownership groups that can easily pressure municipalities for stadium subsidies, publicly traded teams must answer to broader stakeholder interests. Moreover, public teams can raise capital through stock or bonds instead of leaning on taxpayers.Rather than penalizing the only team operating under these conditions, Congress should create incentives—like a targeted entertainment industry carveout—to encourage more public ownership. The goal isn't to give special treatment to the Braves, but to promote a model that favors transparency, accountability, and financial independence from taxpayers. Letting the current tax rule stand would send the wrong message: rewarding secrecy while punishing openness—and that's bad policy not just for baseball, but for public trust. 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: Mutiny on the BountyOn April 28, 1789, one of the most famous acts of rebellion at sea occurred aboard the HMS Bounty. Captain William Bligh and 18 loyal crew members were forcibly set adrift in the Pacific Ocean by mutineers led by Fletcher Christian. The incident exposed deep tensions over leadership, working conditions, and authority in the Royal Navy. British law at the time treated mutiny as a capital offense, reflecting the critical importance of discipline aboard ships. After the mutiny, an intense search for the culprits began, with some mutineers eventually captured and returned to England to stand trial.The ensuing court-martial proceedings offered early insight into naval justice and the balancing act between maintaining strict command and recognizing crew grievances. Defendants argued that Bligh's harsh leadership provoked the uprising, but the Admiralty was unwavering in its stance against insubordination. Of those captured, three were found guilty and hanged, while others were acquitted or pardoned. The legal handling of the mutiny reinforced the severe consequences for undermining maritime authority. It also prompted discussions about humane treatment of sailors, subtly influencing later reforms in naval discipline.The Mutiny on the Bounty became a lasting symbol in both legal and cultural history, illustrating how law functions as both a tool of control and a response to the realities of human endurance and dissent at sea.Seven Democratic senators on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have requested information from the Justice Department regarding recent changes within its civil rights division under President Donald Trump's administration. In a letter sent Friday, they expressed concern over the reassignment of several career officials, suggesting these moves could be an attempt to pressure staff into leaving and shift the division's enforcement priorities. Since Trump's return to office and the appointment of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, the department has paused investigations into police misconduct, launched a gun rights investigation in Los Angeles, and altered its approach to transgender rights cases. It has also opened investigations into antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian protests at colleges. The senators emphasized the importance of nonpartisan career staff in maintaining the integrity of civil rights enforcement. About a dozen senior attorneys specializing in voting, police, and disability rights were among those reassigned. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the senators' letter.Democratic senators question US Justice Department on civil rights changes | ReutersThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that federal law enforcement agencies raided a nightclub in Colorado Springs, arresting over 100 individuals who were in the U.S. illegally. The operation resulted in 114 arrests out of more than 200 people present at the venue, making it one of the largest immigration-related raids since President Donald Trump's second term began. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the raid also led to the seizure of cocaine, methamphetamine, and "pink cocaine," and two individuals were arrested on outstanding warrants. Bondi mentioned links to gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, although she did not directly confirm whether those arrested were affiliated with them. The DEA noted that occupants were given multiple warnings before the raid was executed. This action is part of an intensifying crackdown on illegal immigration under Trump's renewed immigration policies. Separately, ICE recently reported nearly 800 immigration-related arrests in Florida during a multi-agency operation.Over 100 migrants in the US illegally arrested in Colorado nightclub | ReutersThe Supreme Court has requested additional briefing in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that insurers cover preventive services, like cancer screenings, at no cost. The justices specifically want the parties to address whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the legal authority to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises on covered treatments. During arguments on April 21, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the power to remove officials necessarily implies the power to appoint them, an issue the lower court had not considered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the task force's structure violated the Constitution's appointments clause, arguing its members must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration contends the task force members are merely "inferior officers" under the HHS Secretary's control. The case also involves objections by Texas businesses and residents to mandatory coverage of HIV prevention drugs, claiming unconstitutional imposition by unelected officials. Supplemental briefs are due by May 5, and while rare, this is not the first time the Court has asked for more information after oral arguments, as seen in past cases like Zubik v. Burwell and Citizens United v. FEC.Supreme Court Orders New Briefs After Obamacare Case Argued (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: United States v. Carolene Products Co. DecidedOn April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, a seemingly mundane case about a federal law banning the interstate shipment of “filled milk.” But beneath its surface lay one of the most consequential footnotes in American constitutional history. The Court upheld the statute under a rational basis review, affirming Congress's authority to regulate economic activity. However, in Footnote Four of the majority opinion, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone proposed a bold and lasting idea: not all legislation should be treated equally when it comes to judicial review.Stone suggested that while economic regulations would generally be upheld if they had a rational basis, laws that appeared to conflict with specific constitutional prohibitions or aimed at "discrete and insular minorities" might require stricter scrutiny. This footnote planted the seed for what would become the modern system of tiered judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—used to assess the constitutionality of laws under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.Though Footnote Four was not binding, it became one of the most cited and influential passages in constitutional law. It signaled a shift away from the Lochner-era deference to economic liberty and toward more robust judicial protection of civil rights and liberties. The idea that courts have a special role in protecting politically powerless groups fundamentally shaped later decisions in cases involving racial discrimination, free speech, and voting rights.In this way, a case about dairy regulation became a cornerstone of modern constitutional doctrine. Carolene Products illustrates how even minor legal disputes can produce major legal revolutions—one footnote at a time.In a rare display of bipartisan unity, the U.S. government is making significant legal advances against Big Tech, with Meta and Google facing tough antitrust scrutiny in simultaneous court cases. In separate proceedings in a Washington federal courthouse, the FTC is attempting to break up Meta, while the DOJ is pressing Google over illegal monopoly practices, including deals to pre-install its AI on smartphones. These efforts reflect years of legal groundwork laid across both the Trump and Biden administrations, showing that concerns over Big Tech's power and influence transcend party lines—even if the motivations differ. While Democrats emphasize market concentration and data control, Republicans have focused on censorship and political bias. Despite court momentum, legislative action remains stalled, hindered by political polarization and disagreements over broader issues like content moderation and China policy. The bipartisan front could fracture as political dynamics shift, especially with Trump signaling a more cooperative stance toward tech companies–or at least a willingness to extract rents from them.Meta, Google Hammered in Court in Sign of Rare Left-Right Unity - BloombergThe American Bar Association (ABA) laid off over 300 employees after the Trump administration cut $69 million in federal grant funding, according to a new lawsuit filed by the ABA against the Department of Justice. The organization alleges the cuts were politically motivated retaliation for its support of diversity initiatives and criticism of the administration. The terminated grants had funded legal aid programs for domestic violence victims and immigrants, as well as global rule of law initiatives. The layoffs affected about a third of the ABA's staff, including workers in its South Texas ProBar program and international legal development projects. The DOJ ended the grants shortly after barring its attorneys from participating in ABA events. The ABA is being represented by Democracy Forward in the suit, which also names Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.ABA Lays Off 300 Employees, Blaming Trump Grant Funding Cuts (1)Richard Lawson, the lawyer defending President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, has faced repeated courtroom defeats while offering vague, evasive answers under judicial questioning. In four separate cases, courts have temporarily blocked Trump's orders, which aimed to punish firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale for their roles in legal actions against him by revoking security clearances and threatening government contracts. Judges have openly criticized the orders as retaliatory and politically motivated. Despite this, Lawson has often appeared alone in court, prompting speculation that even the Justice Department is reluctant to back the arguments he's tasked with presenting. His vague responses and visible discomfort have drawn scrutiny, especially given his political ties to Attorney General Pam Bondi and his role at the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute. While some law firms have settled by agreeing to large pro bono commitments, others are pushing forward in court, where permanent injunctions against the executive orders now seem likely.Trump Attorney for Big Law Attacks Says Little as Losses Rack UpIn a piece for Forbes earlier this week, I argue that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction is fundamentally flawed and difficult to defend. Though often framed as a benefit to the middle class or a protection against double taxation, the deduction overwhelmingly favors wealthy households and creates inequities in the federal tax system. It allows states to impose high taxes without facing full political accountability, effectively outsourcing part of the cost to the federal government. The 2017 cap of $10,000 was a step in the right direction, and data shows that repealing it would benefit primarily the top 20% of earners—not typical working families. Unlike other personal expenses like rent or groceries, which aren't deductible, SALT gets special treatment without clear justification. If we care about fairness, progressivity, and honest budgeting, it's time to seriously consider scrapping the deduction altogether.Reconsidering The SALT Deduction: Is It Defensible?This week's closing theme is the final section of Finlandia, Op. 26, by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius, performed here in its piano version. Composed in 1899 during a time of intense political censorship and rising nationalist sentiment, Finlandia was Sibelius's defiant musical response to Russian oppression. The tone poem was originally part of a series of historical tableaux performed as a protest against censorship, with Finlandia serving as the rousing finale.While the early passages of Finlandia are turbulent and stormy—meant to evoke struggle—the final section is a striking contrast: serene, solemn, and deeply moving. This lyrical closing, often referred to as the Finlandia Hymn, became an unofficial anthem of Finnish resistance and later a national symbol of unity and perseverance. In this week's selection, we hear a solo piano arrangement that strips the music to its essence, allowing the melody's dignity and quiet strength to shine through.Sibelius once said, “Music begins where the possibilities of language end,” and in Finlandia's final moments, words do indeed fall away. What remains is a profound expression of hope and resilience—qualities that have made this music resonate far beyond Finland's borders. Though Sibelius composed in the late Romantic tradition, his voice is unmistakably his own: direct, elemental, and rooted in the landscape and soul of his homeland.As we close out the week, let Finlandia remind us that even in times of turbulence, grace and resolve can still find their voice. 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: Easter RisingOn April 24, 1916, the Easter Rising erupted in Dublin as Irish republicans launched a bold and ultimately tragic insurrection against British rule. The event, intended to establish an independent Irish Republic, had enormous legal and constitutional consequences that would ripple through British and Irish law for years. Roughly 1,200 rebels seized key buildings across Dublin, proclaiming the establishment of the Irish Republic from the steps of the General Post Office.In response, the British government declared martial law and deployed thousands of troops to suppress the rebellion. Courts-martial were swiftly convened, and between May 3 and May 12, fifteen rebel leaders were executed, including Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, and Thomas Clarke. These summary executions, carried out without the protections of civilian trial, shocked many in Ireland and Britain and were later criticized as legally excessive and politically tone-deaf.The use of military tribunals rather than civilian courts raised serious questions about the limits of legal authority during wartime and the rights of those accused of political violence. The Rising also marked a critical turning point in British colonial legal practice, highlighting the inherent tension between empire and constitutional rule.In the wake of the rebellion, the British government passed additional emergency laws to manage dissent in Ireland, but these legal measures only deepened nationalist sentiment. The Easter Rising set the stage for the Irish War of Independence, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, and ultimately the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922.The legal legacy of April 24 is one of sharp contrast: between the rigid imposition of imperial law and the revolutionary demand for self-determination. It remains a powerful example of how law can be both a tool of control and a symbol of contested legitimacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has agreed to drop its appeal in a longstanding legal battle with PayPal over a 2019 rule that required digital wallet providers to disclose fees using a standardized form originally intended for prepaid cards. The decision came through a joint filing on April 21 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, following a March 2024 district court ruling in PayPal's favor that limited the reach of the rule.The CFPB's regulation extended fee disclosure mandates for prepaid cards to digital wallets, despite the agency's own acknowledgment that most digital wallets don't charge such fees. PayPal contested the rule soon after its issuance, arguing that digital wallets function differently from prepaid cards since they store payment credentials rather than actual funds. In contrast, prepaid cards are used to store and spend cash directly.The legal journey began when Judge Richard J. Leon initially sided with PayPal in 2020, but his ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit in 2023, prompting a remand. Leon again ruled for PayPal in March 2024, leading the CFPB to appeal before ultimately deciding to drop the case.This withdrawal marks the second recent instance of the CFPB, under acting Director Russell Vought, stepping back from litigation challenging its rules. A week prior, the agency also agreed to halt enforcement of a proposed $8 cap on credit card late fees amid a separate lawsuit. PayPal is represented by WilmerHale which, you will of course remember, has been targeted by a Trump executive order.CFPB Agrees to Halt Appeal of PayPal Win on Digital Wallet RulePresident Trump announced via Truth Social that he is suing the law firm Perkins Coie, accusing it of committing “egregious and unlawful acts,” specifically pointing to the actions of an unnamed individual at the firm. However, it remains unclear whether Trump intends to file a new lawsuit or was referring to ongoing legal disputes.Last month, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to terminate federal contracts with clients of Perkins Coie if the firm had performed any work on them. In response, Perkins Coie sued the administration, claiming the order was unconstitutional.Trump's legal team also requested the recusal of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell from overseeing that case, alleging a “pattern of hostility” toward the president. Trump repeated his criticism of Judge Howell in his latest post, calling her “highly biased.”The legal conflict adds to Trump's ongoing confrontations with the judiciary and firms linked to Democratic causes. Perkins Coie has historically represented Democratic interests, making the dispute politically charged.Trump says he is suing Perkins Coie law firm | ReutersLaw firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale asked federal judges in Washington, D.C., to permanently block executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. The firms argue the orders are unconstitutional acts of political retaliation. These orders sought to revoke government contracts held by their clients and restrict the firms' access to federal buildings, citing their ties to Trump's legal and political opponents.The legal battle marks a significant escalation between major law firms and the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell heard Perkins Coie's request for summary judgment, while Judge Richard Leon handled WilmerHale's case later in the day. Both judges had already issued temporary blocks on Trump's orders in March.The Department of Justice defended the executive orders as valid exercises of presidential authority. Meanwhile, other prominent firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have settled with the White House to avoid similar orders, agreeing to provide pro bono services and other terms reportedly totaling nearly $1 billion in value.The legal community has widely condemned the executive orders. Hundreds of firms and legal organizations argue the moves were designed to chill legal representation against Trump, infringing on the right to counsel and undermining the legal profession's independence. Some attorneys at firms that settled have resigned in protest.Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar executive orders against them | ReutersThe State Bar of California plans to ask the California Supreme Court to lower the passing score for the February 2025 bar exam after a troubled rollout that included technical and logistical failures. The proposed score of 534 is below the 560 recommended by the bar's testing expert. This score adjustment would apply to all test takers, regardless of the specific issues they faced.February's exam marked the first time California administered a hybrid bar test, offered both remotely and in-person, and without components of the long-used national bar exam. Although the change aimed to reduce costs, it resulted in significant problems such as software crashes and intrusive proctoring interruptions. It's unclear how many of the 4,300 examinees were affected, but the State Bar has opened an investigation into the widespread issues.The bar also recommended imputing scores for test takers unable to complete key sections, a process that estimates performance based on completed answers. The Committee of Bar Examiners acknowledged the challenge of crafting a remedy that is both fair and preserves the integrity of the exam.In addition to adjusting scores, the committee is considering provisional licensing programs that would allow affected test takers to practice under supervision while awaiting full licensure. Final test results are due May 2, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the score change request by April 28. The committee will meet again on May 5 to consider further options.California bar seeks to reduce pass score after disastrous exam rollout | 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: Sirhan Sirhan Sentenced to DeathOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a tragedy that shook the United States during a period of intense political and social upheaval. Kennedy had been shot on June 5, 1968, just after declaring victory in the California Democratic primary, and he died the following day. Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was apprehended at the scene with a gun in his hand and later confessed to the crime during police interrogation.Despite the confession and trial conviction, controversy has surrounded the case for decades. In 1972, Sirhan's death sentence was commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court invalidated the state's death penalty statutes. A resurgence of interest in the case came in 1998, when Sirhan's attorney Larry Teeter publicly argued that his client had not actually fired the fatal shot. Teeter pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the number of bullets fired, raising the possibility of a second gunman.Teeter's claims never gained traction in court, but they fed into ongoing skepticism among some legal observers and conspiracy theorists. Over the years, Sirhan has repeatedly sought parole, asserting he was manipulated and does not remember the events of the assassination. Most recently, in March 2023, a California parole board again denied his release, citing concerns over public safety and lack of full accountability.The legal legacy of the case is complex, entangling questions of criminal justice, political violence, and the integrity of forensic evidence. It remains one of the most controversial political assassinations in U.S. history.A long-running legal battle over the rights to Superman has taken a new turn as the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster attempts to block the release of an upcoming film in several foreign markets. In a January 2025 lawsuit, executor Mark Warren Peary argued that copyright laws in the U.K., Canada, Australia, and Ireland revert rights to heirs 25 years after the author's death, potentially invalidating the original 1938 agreement with DC's predecessor. This suit follows a 2023 federal ruling in Vetter v. Resnik that disrupted long-standing entertainment industry consensus by suggesting there is no separate category for foreign rights under the Berne Convention—meaning U.S. termination rights may apply globally.This theory directly challenges a 2008 Superman-related decision that limited termination to U.S. rights. Judge Shelly Dick's 2024 ruling supported the broader reading of termination rights, asserting that foreign copyright protections of U.S. works “arise under” U.S. law. Her opinion dismisses prior case law and scholar-backed consensus as insufficiently grounded. Legal experts are split on the implications, with some praising the reasoning as well-founded, while others see significant obstacles to enforcement abroad.Peary's effort is hampered by delays—he brought the suit years after the alleged 2017 rights reversion—and by the steep burden of proving irreparable harm. Critics also question whether foreign courts will honor a U.S. ruling. The legal strategy comes as Superman is set to enter the public domain within the next decade, prompting what some view as a final attempt by Shuster's estate to reclaim financial control of the iconic character.Superman IP Fight Turns on Newly Questioned Foreign Rights CanonTwo U.S. federal judges have extended temporary blocks on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants and questioned the Trump administration's use of a centuries-old wartime law to expedite removals. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in a March 15 proclamation to deport individuals allegedly affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, sending many to a high-security prison in El Salvador under a $6 million deal with President Nayib Bukele's government. However, U.S. District Judges Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado and Alvin Hellerstein in New York signaled that this use of the law likely violates due process rights.Judge Sweeney ruled that migrants detained in Colorado must receive at least 21 days' notice before deportation, while Judge Hellerstein suggested a minimum of 10 days in his Manhattan hearing. Hellerstein also raised constitutional concerns, referencing the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and questioning the legality of mass deportations without individual review. The Supreme Court recently ruled that migrants must have the opportunity to challenge deportation but left specifics undefined.Attorneys for the migrants, represented by the ACLU, argued that the Alien Enemies Act shouldn't apply, as no formal war exists, and Tren de Aragua's presence doesn't constitute one. The ACLU also sought a 30-day notice period, consistent with practices during WWII when the law was last broadly applied. Meanwhile, another case revealed that a Salvadoran man had been mistakenly deported, prompting a federal judge in Maryland to demand documentation on the government's efforts to correct the error.Judges extend Venezuela deportation blocks, question Trump's use of wartime law | ReutersThe European Union fined Apple €500 million ($570 million) and Meta €200 million ($228 million) for breaching the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark law aimed at reining in the dominance of Big Tech. These penalties mark the first enforcement actions under the DMA, which seeks to promote competition by requiring dominant platforms to remove barriers for smaller rivals. Apple was penalized for restricting app developers from directing users to cheaper alternatives outside the App Store and for imposing disincentives, such as its new “Core Technology Fee,” that discourage the use of alternative app distribution channels on iOS.Meta's violation centered on its “pay-or-consent” model, which offered users either free, ad-supported access to Facebook and Instagram with data tracking or a paid, ad-free version. Regulators determined this structure did not comply with the DMA's requirements for user consent and fairness. Both companies have two months to adjust their practices or face daily fines. While Apple and Meta criticized the rulings—claiming they unfairly target U.S. companies—EU officials emphasized that all firms operating in Europe must respect local rules.The fines are relatively small compared to previous EU antitrust actions, reflecting a strategic shift toward compliance over punishment and a possible effort to avoid inflaming U.S.-EU trade tensions. The U.S. administration under President Donald Trump has already voiced displeasure with European crackdowns on American tech firms and has threatened retaliatory tariffs.Apple fined $570 million and Meta $228 million for breach of EU law | 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: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, 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: Army-McCarthy Hearings BeginOn April 22, 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings began in Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The televised proceedings, which stretched over two months, were convened to investigate conflicting accusations between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. Army. McCarthy claimed the Army was sheltering communists; the Army countered that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had improperly pressured military officials to give preferential treatment to a former McCarthy aide.These hearings drew millions of viewers and brought McCarthy's aggressive, often unsubstantiated allegations into public view. Under questioning, McCarthy's bullying tactics and disregard for evidence became increasingly apparent. The most famous moment came when Army counsel Joseph Welch rebuked McCarthy with the now-historic line, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a turning point in the hearings and in public perception of McCarthy.As support for McCarthy dwindled, the hearings exposed the dangers of reckless accusations without due process, a central legal concern during the Red Scare. Later that year, the Senate formally censured McCarthy, effectively ending his political influence. The hearings stand as a cautionary tale about the abuse of investigatory powers and the erosion of civil liberties in times of national fear. They also highlight the essential role of transparency and accountability in American governance. The legacy of the Army-McCarthy hearings continues to inform debates over the balance between national security and individual rights.Alphabet's Google faces a major antitrust trial starting Monday in Washington, as the U.S. Department of Justice and 38 state attorneys general seek to break up its dominance in the search engine market. Central to the government's case is a proposal for Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially even its Android operating system if competition isn't restored. Prosecutors argue that Google's exclusive agreements, like those paying billions to Apple and other companies to be the default search engine, have harmed rivals, including emerging AI firms like Perplexity AI and OpenAI.Google insists the DOJ's demands are extreme and warns that ending these deals could harm browser makers like Mozilla and raise smartphone costs. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is presiding over the trial, expected to last three weeks. Google plans to appeal any unfavorable ruling and argues that its deals help fund free, open-source technology. The case follows a separate DOJ victory last week, where a judge found Google maintained an illegal monopoly in ad tech. The trial's outcome could dramatically reshape how Americans access information online and influence future antitrust enforcement, with similar scrutiny already aimed at companies like Meta.Google faces trial in US bid to end search monopoly | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Minnesota's appeal defending its law that barred individuals under 21 from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public. This decision leaves in place a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case is one of many that have challenged age-based and other gun restrictions following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established that firearm regulations must align with the nation's historical traditions to be valid.Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Firearms Policy Coalition, challenged the law, arguing it infringed on the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. Minnesota defended the law as a modest safety measure, noting that youths already have access to guns under specific conditions, such as hunting or supervision. The 8th Circuit disagreed, saying the state failed to prove that young adults posed a sufficient threat or that the restriction had historical precedent.While more than 30 states have similar age-related laws, Minnesota's could no longer be enforced once the appeals process concluded. The case underscores how courts are interpreting and applying the Bruen test, which has reshaped the legal landscape for gun laws. Although the Supreme Court has upheld some modern firearm restrictions, it has consistently signaled that any such laws must fit within historical frameworks.US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I talk about the risk posed by the Department of Government Efficiency's (DGE) access to taxpayer data. If the federal government wants more access to your tax data, it should have to meet a high bar—proving a clear need, protecting the information, and being transparent about how it's used. Right now, the DGE, spearheaded by Elon Musk, is pushing for expanded access to the IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), which holds deeply sensitive taxpayer records. The rationale? To root out fraud and streamline federal oversight. But noble intentions aren't a substitute for safeguards—and as it stands, DGE hasn't provided any clear guardrails for how it would handle this data.We've seen how this can go wrong. In Sweden, the national tax agency is now facing a lawsuit for sharing taxpayer data with private companies, including marketers and data brokers. Sweden's commitment to constitutional transparency has been used to justify these disclosures, even as they appear to violate Europe's strict privacy laws. It's a reminder that transparency can be weaponized, and privacy treated as an inconvenience. If that sounds extreme, just imagine your tax return fueling a marketing database in the name of government openness.In the U.S., Section 6103 of the tax code makes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer data a felony. DGE's quest to tap into the IDRS raises serious questions about whether internal access could amount to disclosure, especially if it increases the risk of leaks, misuse, or political meddling. DGE already has access to some refund-related data, but it's now seeking far more granular insight—without explaining what it will do with it, or how it will prevent abuse.What Sweden's case makes clear is that even the best intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes when privacy is not treated as sacrosanct. The U.S. should take that warning seriously. Taxpayer data is among the most sensitive information the government holds. Expanding access to it—especially by an agency as vaguely defined as DGE—should not happen without a fully transparent, purpose-limited, and accountable framework.Until then, DGE should not be granted access to the IRS's IDRS system or any individualized taxpayer information. The risks are too high, and the protections too flimsy. 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: Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.On April 18, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., a significant decision reinforcing the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The case arose after Congress enacted legislation requiring federal courts to reopen certain final judgments in securities fraud cases that had been dismissed under an earlier statute of limitations ruling. The plaintiffs, whose claims had already been dismissed with finality, sought to revive their lawsuits under this new provision.In a 7–2 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that Congress cannot force Article III courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed the importance of finality in judicial decisions and warned against legislative interference with core judicial functions. He argued that once a case is decided, it becomes law of the case and should not be revisited at Congress's whim.The ruling underscored the judiciary's independence from political pressure and reaffirmed that each branch of government must respect the constitutional boundaries of the others. Scalia noted that permitting Congress to override final court decisions would blur the lines between legislative and judicial authority, threatening the rule of law.This decision was not just a technical interpretation of procedural law; it was a firm statement about institutional integrity. Plaut became a cornerstone case for understanding the limits of congressional power over the courts. It continues to be cited in debates over judicial independence and the sanctity of final judgments.A federal appeals court rejected an emergency attempt by the Trump administration to block a judge's order requiring the government to aid in the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court ruling barring his removal. The court condemned the Justice Department's actions, with Judge Harvie Wilkinson calling them a violation of fundamental liberties and due process. He criticized the administration for acting as though it could abandon individuals in foreign prisons without legal recourse.The Supreme Court previously upheld a similar directive from District Judge Paula Xinis, requiring the administration to work toward bringing Abrego Garcia back from Salvadoran custody. The government claims Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang and lacks the right to remain in the U.S., arguing that Xinis overstepped by involving herself in foreign affairs. However, Wilkinson stressed that due process rights apply regardless of alleged affiliations and warned that ignoring court orders could lead to broader abuses of power, including the potential deportation of U.S. citizens.Abrego Garcia, who has no criminal record in either country, was deported alongside 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador's high-security prison. His 2019 immigration court ruling protected him from deportation due to threats of gang-based extortion.Trump Loses Emergency Appeal to Halt Maryland Deportation CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, a constitutional principle rooted in the 14th Amendment. Although the case won't directly determine the legality of Trump's executive order, it will address whether lower court rulings that blocked the policy nationwide should be scaled back to apply only to specific plaintiffs or jurisdictions.Trump's order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. It directs federal agencies to withhold documents like Social Security cards and passports from newborns who don't meet that criterion. Critics argue this violates well-established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which affirms citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.The Justice Department argues that nationwide injunctions—orders that block policies across the country—exceed judicial authority and should be narrowed. The administration also questions whether the states and groups suing have legal standing. Despite these claims, lower courts have uniformly refused to allow the executive order to take effect.Opponents, including 22 Democratic-led states and immigration advocacy groups, argue that Trump's effort seeks to strip citizenship from thousands of children and overturn long-standing legal precedent. Trump maintains that birthright citizenship was originally intended only for formerly enslaved people, not for the children of non-citizens.US Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Case - BloombergUS Supreme Court to hear Trump bid to enforce birthright citizenship order | ReutersFifth Circuit Judge James Ho sharply criticized the power of trial-level judges in a recent opinion, focusing on what he sees as overreach in politically sensitive cases. Ho issued a writ of mandamus instructing a district judge in Louisiana to vacate her order reopening a death penalty case years after it had been dismissed. He was joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham, while Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, arguing the appellate process should proceed normally.In his concurring opinion, Ho warned against what he called the misuse of judicial power to obstruct democratic outcomes. He connected the Louisiana case to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reversed a nationwide order from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., which had blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court said the Venezuelan plaintiffs should have filed their suit in Texas, where they were detained, effectively transferring jurisdiction and narrowing Boasberg's reach.Ho used that ruling to reinforce his argument that appellate courts must intervene swiftly when district judges exceed their authority. He accused some judges of rushing to block policies they oppose politically, calling it a threat to the electorate's choices and governmental efficiency. He argued that deferring to the standard appeals timeline enables what he called “district judge supremacy.”Judge Haynes pushed back in dissent, criticizing the majority's allegation that the district court manipulated legal processes, especially since neither party in the case had challenged the judge's integrity. She maintained the threshold for a mandamus was not met and objected to the majority's tone and assumptions.James Ho Knocks Trial Judge Who Blocked Venezuelan DeportationsThis week's closing theme is The Moldau by Bedřich Smetana, a defining work in Czech Romantic nationalism and one of the most evocative tone poems in classical music. Smetana, born in 1824 in what is now the Czech Republic, was a pioneering composer who sought to express the identity, history, and natural beauty of his homeland through music. A contemporary of Liszt and Wagner, he was deeply influenced by the idea of programmatic music—compositions that tell a story or paint a picture without the use of words.The Moldau (or Vltava, in Czech) is the second and most famous piece from Smetana's larger symphonic cycle Má vlast(My Homeland), composed between 1874 and 1879. The piece traces the course of the Vltava River from its source in the Bohemian forest, through the countryside, past villages and castles, and ultimately to its merger with the Elbe River. Through rich orchestration and shifting textures, Smetana portrays everything from bubbling springs and flowing currents to a peasant wedding and moonlit night dances by water nymphs.Composed while Smetana was going completely deaf, The Moldau is as much a feat of imagination as it is of musical skill. The main theme, introduced by the flutes and then carried through the orchestra, is one of the most recognizable and emotionally stirring in classical music. It serves not just as a musical depiction of a river but as a symbol of Czech identity, resilience, and natural beauty.Closing with The Moldau offers a moment to reflect on continuity, movement, and national spirit—fitting themes for a week shaped by legal currents and constitutional debate.Without further ado, The Moldau, by Bedřich Smetana – 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: LochnerOn April 17, 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, a landmark case in American constitutional law that struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour workweek and 10-hour workday. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by interfering with the freedom of contract between employers and employees. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, held that the state had overreached its police powers because the law did not have a sufficient connection to health or safety.This decision launched what is known as the “Lochner era,” a period lasting into the 1930s during which the Supreme Court routinely struck down economic regulations on the basis that they infringed upon economic liberties. Critics of the ruling saw it as judicial activism favoring corporate interests over workers' rights, while supporters viewed it as a defense of individual liberty and limited government.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote a famous dissent, arguing that the Constitution does not enshrine any particular economic theory and warning against the Court imposing its own views on legislation. His dissent later became influential in shaping modern constitutional jurisprudence.The Lochner decision has since been largely discredited and is no longer considered good law, but it remains a critical case in debates over substantive due process, judicial restraint, and economic regulation.Google is facing a class action lawsuit in the UK that could result in damages of up to £5 billion ($6.6 billion), alleging it abused its dominant position in the online search market. Filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the case argues that Google's control of the search engine landscape allowed it to inflate advertising prices. The suit claims Google secured exclusive deals with phone manufacturers and Apple to make its search engine the default option, effectively excluding competitors.The claim also alleges Google offered better functionality and features for its own ads, making it harder for rivals to compete. Led by competition law expert Or Brook, the suit represents thousands of businesses who argue they had no real alternative to using Google Ads. Brook emphasized that visibility on Google is critical for businesses, calling its control a form of monopoly power.Google rejected the allegations as speculative and said it would fight the lawsuit, maintaining that users and advertisers choose its services because they are effective, not because they are forced to. Meanwhile, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority launched a separate investigation into Google's practices earlier this year, citing its dominant role in UK search and advertising markets.Google faces 5 billion pound UK lawsuit for abusing dominance in online search | ReutersThe Associated Press (AP) has accused the Trump White House of ignoring a court order that reinstated the news agency's access to press events. The dispute centers around a federal judge's finding that the AP was unlawfully retaliated against for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America” in place of the historically recognized “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting, as requested by President Trump. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the White House likely violated the AP's First Amendment rights and ordered that access restrictions be lifted while the case proceeds.Despite this, AP lawyers say the White House continues to exclude its journalists from the press pool, including access to the Oval Office and presidential travel. In response, the White House implemented a new policy removing all wire services, including AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg, from permanent pool status, placing them instead in a rotating system with about 30 other outlets. The AP claims this is a veiled attempt to continue its exclusion.Both Reuters and the AP criticized the policy, noting that many media outlets, especially smaller and international ones, depend on wire service coverage for timely updates on presidential actions. The White House has appealed Judge McFadden's ruling, with arguments scheduled before a federal appellate court.AP accuses Trump White House of defying court order restoring access | ReutersThe California attorney general's office has declined to support Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, stating in a public letter that the legal action doesn't appear to serve the state's public interest. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI but later left, accuses the company and CEO Sam Altman of abandoning its nonprofit mission in favor of profit. He urged the state to join his lawsuit, arguing the transition to a for-profit model undermines the original intent of the organization.The attorney general's office responded that Musk hadn't demonstrated how the lawsuit would benefit the public and raised concerns that he may be trying to control OpenAI's assets for personal gain. This comes after Musk's consortium offered an unsolicited $97 billion bid for the company earlier this year. Musk's legal team pushed back, claiming the state misunderstood his intentions and noting support from former OpenAI employees and philanthropic leaders who oppose the company's restructuring.OpenAI, which is still legally a nonprofit in California, must get approval from the state for its planned governance changes. The company says the changes are essential to secure $40 billion in investment and that the nonprofit will retain a stake in the for-profit entity, helping it fulfill its mission long-term.Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024, asserting OpenAI had strayed from its founding purpose of developing AI to benefit humanity. A jury trial is scheduled for next year. Meanwhile, Musk has launched a competing AI firm, xAI, and Altman has accused him of trying to sabotage a rival.California attorney general declines to join Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI | 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: Rush-Bagot TreatyOn April 16, 1818, the United States Senate ratified the Rush-Bagot Treaty, a landmark agreement with Great Britain that fundamentally reshaped security along the U.S.-Canada border. Negotiated in the aftermath of the War of 1812, the treaty aimed to de-escalate military tensions between the two nations by significantly limiting naval armaments on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Specifically, it allowed each country to maintain only a single military vessel on Lakes Ontario and Champlain and two vessels on the upper Great Lakes, each restricted in size and armament. The treaty marked a mutual commitment to demilitarization and ushered in a new era of diplomacy.The negotiations were spearheaded by Acting U.S. Secretary of State Richard Rush and British Minister to the U.S., Charles Bagot. Though initially framed as an exchange of diplomatic notes rather than a formal treaty, it was nonetheless submitted to the Senate for ratification, reflecting its constitutional significance. The Rush-Bagot Treaty laid the groundwork for what would become the world's longest undefended border. It also set a precedent for the peaceful resolution of border disputes through legal and diplomatic means rather than military force.While tensions between the two nations would persist in other areas, the Great Lakes remained largely free of armed conflict, validating the treaty's long-term effectiveness. Over time, the agreement became a model of arms control and remains in effect today, albeit with amendments reflecting evolving security concerns. Its ratification on this day helped steer U.S.-British relations toward lasting peace and cooperation, especially in North America. The treaty's enduring legacy is a testament to the power of legal frameworks in shaping geopolitical stability.The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the state over transgender athletes' participation in girls' and women's sports. The suit alleges that Maine is violating Title IX by permitting transgender female athletes to compete on girls' teams, citing recent examples from high school track events. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the action days after the administration attempted to cut off Maine's federal school funding and school lunch programs.This legal move follows a standoff between President Trump and Maine Governor Janet Mills, who rebuffed Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from female sports. Mills told Trump, “We're going to follow the law, sir. We'll see you in court.” The administration's Title IX-based complaint argues that allowing transgender participation undermines fairness and safety, though no specific safety threats are detailed—of course.The Department of Education had already announced the suspension of $250 million in K-12 education funding for Maine, while the Department of Agriculture sought to freeze school lunch support. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the USDA's actions after Maine sued the federal government. Maine's Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Forster, pushed back, arguing that Title IX does not prohibit schools from including transgender girls in girls' sports and criticized the federal government's lack of legal precedent.US to take legal action against Maine over Trump executive order on transgender athletes | ReutersSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he will block President Trump's nominations of Jay Clayton and Joe Nocella to serve as U.S. attorneys in New York's Southern and Eastern Districts, respectively. Schumer's refusal to return the customary “blue slip” signals his opposition and sets up a potential clash over the Senate tradition that gives home-state senators influence over federal prosecutor and judge appointments. He cited concerns that Trump intends to politicize the Justice Department, accusing him of seeking to weaponize law enforcement against political enemies.Clayton, a former SEC chair, was nominated to oversee the Southern District, which includes Manhattan and is often referred to as the nation's "Wall Street watchdog." Nocella, a state judge, was tapped for the Eastern District, covering Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. Schumer's move could provoke Republicans to eliminate the blue slip practice for U.S. attorney nominations, as they previously did for circuit court judges.While Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley had earlier indicated he planned to preserve the blue slip process for U.S. attorney picks, growing political tensions may lead to changes. The debate echoes earlier pressure on Democrats to bypass blue slips during the Biden administration for nominees in states with GOP senators. Meanwhile, other Democratic senators, like Adam Schiff, are also using procedural holds to delay nominees they find objectionable, such as Ed Martin, who previously defended January 6 participants.Schumer to Block Jay Clayton as Top US Prosecutor in ManhattanPresident Donald Trump's threat to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status has sparked broader concerns about the politicization of the IRS and a potential crackdown on nonprofits. His warning followed Harvard's refusal to meet administration demands tied to federal funding, prompting a freeze of over $2.2 billion in grants. Other universities like Columbia, Cornell, and Princeton also saw funding halted, amid GOP claims that schools are failing to curb antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Hamas war.Critics see Trump's move as an attempt to use federal tax authority to punish political opponents. Legal scholars warn that using the IRS in this way echoes past abuses, such as those during Nixon's presidency. Some nonprofits have already started removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language from websites to avoid scrutiny, with lawyers reporting a spike in “DEI audits.” Though the IRS hasn't yet changed its enforcement patterns, reduced staffing could make it more susceptible to politicized influence.A recent executive order from Trump targeting “illegal DEI” efforts has heightened fear among nonprofits that their programs, especially those aimed at underrepresented communities, could be labeled discriminatory. Meanwhile, conservative activist Edward Blum has asked the IRS to investigate several foundations for offering race-specific grants, hoping to set a precedent against such practices. Legal experts say programs must be evaluated based on whether they exclude other races, which would likely violate federal law.Trump's Harvard Threat Raises Specter of IRS Nonprofit CrackdownIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that proposals to exempt college athletes' name, image, and likeness (NIL) income from state taxes undermine one of tax policy's core principles: horizontal equity. That principle holds that taxpayers with similar incomes should be taxed similarly—something these NIL exemptions blatantly violate. While some student-athletes now earn six or seven figures, their peers working long hours in campus jobs continue to pay tax on modest earnings. Exempting high-income athletes while taxing low-wage student workers creates a two-tiered system that rewards fame and marketability, not need or effort.These exemptions aren't rooted in sound tax design—they're political moves, often motivated by the desire to curry favor with voters who are fans of college sports. But when states exempt wealthy student-athletes, they're making a value judgment: that celebrity deserves more support than everyday work. Even in states where lower-income students may owe no tax, the policy distinction is stark—exempting income to prevent poverty is not the same as exempting it to boost a football program.Rather than distorting the tax code to chase athletic prestige, I propose a fairer alternative: a progressive income exemption available to all full-time students, tied to the cost of their tuition. If a student pays $12,000 in tuition, they could exempt that amount from tax—regardless of whether their income comes from NIL deals, a job in the library, or a work-study program. This model keeps relief targeted to those bearing educational costs while avoiding regressive giveaways to already well-compensated students. The tax code should reflect fairness and support for all students—not just the most marketable ones.Student NIL Tax Breaks Would Put Splashy Recruits Above Fairness 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 various aspects of a number of headlining deportation cases.This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

This Day in Legal History: President Lincoln DiesOn this day in legal history, April 15, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln died from a gunshot wound inflicted the night before by actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth. The assassination occurred at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C., where Lincoln was watching a play with his wife. He was shot in the back of the head and never regained consciousness, dying the next morning at 7:22 a.m. His death was the first assassination of a U.S. president and triggered a constitutional transition of power during a critical moment in American history. Vice President Andrew Johnson was sworn in the same day, inheriting the enormous task of leading the country through the fragile early stages of Reconstruction.Legally, Lincoln's assassination set several precedents. It led to the use of military tribunals to try civilians involved in Booth's conspiracy, a decision that remains controversial in constitutional law. The event also underscored the importance of presidential succession, later clarified by the 25th Amendment. In the immediate aftermath, martial law and curfews were imposed in the capital, and a massive manhunt ensued for Booth and his co-conspirators. The killing intensified public sentiment against the South and complicated efforts to reunify the nation. Johnson's approach to Reconstruction diverged sharply from Lincoln's more conciliatory plans, shaping decades of legal and political conflict over civil rights. The assassination deeply impacted how the federal government approached both national security and executive protection. The tragedy marked not just the loss of a president, but a shift in the legal and political structure of post-Civil War America.As Lincoln's funeral train retraced the route that had carried him from obscurity in Illinois to the presidency, it served as a symbolic farewell to both the man and the future he might have shaped. Each stop along the way—cities draped in mourning, crowds in silent grief—marked not only the end of his political journey but also the shunting off of a potential trajectory for his second term. Had Lincoln lived, his vision for a more lenient and reconciliatory Reconstruction might have softened the bitter divisions that would later deepen under Andrew Johnson's combative leadership. Perhaps civil rights protections would have been implemented sooner, with Lincoln using his political capital and moral authority to push for more lasting equality. The possibility remains that a different course could have been taken—one that prioritized unity without compromising justice, and that may have led to a more inclusive and less violent post-war America.Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally residing Salvadoran migrant in Maryland with a U.S. work permit, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March, despite a judge's order blocking his removal. The Trump administration acknowledged the deportation was in error but has told a federal court it is not obligated to help him return from prison in El Salvador, interpreting a Supreme Court directive to "facilitate" his return as limited to removing domestic barriers—not assisting with his release abroad. A U.S. District Court judge had ordered the government to bring him back, a decision the Supreme Court upheld by rejecting the administration's appeal. However, a top immigration official has now argued the deportation order is moot, citing Abrego Garcia's alleged ties to MS-13, a group newly designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department has confirmed that Abrego Garcia is "alive and secure" in a terrorism detention facility in El Salvador. Legal efforts continue, with Abrego Garcia's attorneys seeking more information from the government. The administration warns this could disrupt diplomatic talks, particularly with El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele visiting Washington. President Trump has said his administration would comply if ordered directly by the Supreme Court.Trump administration says it is not required to help wrongly deported man return to US | ReutersSandoz, a Swiss generic drugmaker, has filed a U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Amgen, accusing it of unlawfully maintaining a monopoly on its arthritis drug Enbrel. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia, alleges that Amgen created a "thicket of patents" to block the entry of biosimilar competitors like Sandoz's Erelzi, which has been approved by the FDA since 2016 but has not launched in the U.S. Sandoz claims this strategy has kept its lower-cost alternative off the market, depriving patients of affordable options and causing the company to lose millions in potential monthly sales. Amgen has not yet commented on the lawsuit. Enbrel generated $3.3 billion in U.S. revenue in 2024 alone and is used to treat inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Sandoz argues that Amgen's patent practices violate federal antitrust laws by suppressing competition and artificially extending its market dominance. The company is seeking an injunction to stop Amgen from using its patent portfolio in this way, as well as financial damages for lost sales.Sandoz files U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Amgen over arthritis drug | ReutersThe U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has agreed to investigate recent changes at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those influenced by the White House and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. This probe follows a request from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Mark Warner, who raised concerns about the SEC's ability to fulfill its regulatory duties amid sweeping restructuring efforts. Since President Trump's return to office and the Republican takeover of the agency, the SEC has reduced staff, ended leases, and reorganized operations. It has also scaled back enforcement efforts and seen a wave of resignations as part of a broader federal downsizing initiative. The GAO confirmed that the request for an investigation falls within its authority, with the review expected to begin in about three months. Lawmakers stress the importance of understanding how these changes may be undermining the SEC's mission. The agency's funding, while approved by Congress, is sourced from transaction fees rather than taxpayer dollars. These developments coincide with market instability triggered by Trump's recent tariff announcement.US congressional watchdog to probe changes at the SEC, letter 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

In this episode, Jeff analyzes President Trump's handling of negotiations with Iran and its terror proxies, as well as America's jihadist universities, and demonstrates that the desire for the bestest of deals doesn't always end with good results for America and its allies. America needs a strong ideologue in place during these difficult times and not a used car salesman.The new four episode Max docuseries about the Sinaloa Cartel is out and you've got a review from the one person who actually knows the truth — Jeff — and he points out the obviously fabrications contained therein. If you real true crime stories you don't want to miss this podcast.

This Day in Legal History: First American Anti-Slavery Society OrganizedOn April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the first American society dedicated to the abolition of slavery was organized. Known as the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, it marked a critical early step in the formal anti-slavery movement in the United States. Among its key founders were Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Benjamin Rush, both prominent figures of the American Enlightenment and signers of the Declaration of Independence. The society was composed primarily of Quakers, whose religious convictions aligned with the idea that slavery was morally wrong and incompatible with Christian values.While its initial activities were limited, the group laid the groundwork for more organized and effective abolitionist efforts in the decades to come. In 1787, after the American Revolution, the society was reconstituted as the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, with Franklin serving as its president. This reorganization gave the movement greater political clout and visibility. The society pushed for gradual emancipation, legal reforms, and the education and employment of freed Black individuals.Franklin's involvement lent substantial legitimacy to the cause, especially when he submitted a petition to the First Congress in 1790 calling for the federal government to take action against slavery. Although the petition was ultimately rejected, it sparked the first significant congressional debate over slavery in U.S. history. The 1775 founding of the original society represents a rare pre-Revolutionary acknowledgment of slavery's moral contradictions within the new American experiment. It also helped forge an early link between legal reform and moral advocacy, a tradition that would define much of the abolitionist movement in the 19th century.Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, is set to face trial in Washington over allegations that it created an illegal monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argues that these billion-dollar acquisitions were designed to eliminate emerging competition and solidify Facebook's dominance in the social media space. Filed in 2020, the case seeks to force Meta to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp, a move that would significantly impact the company's business, especially since Instagram alone is estimated to account for over half of its U.S. ad revenue.Meta's legal team has pushed back, calling the case weak and politically motivated. CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, facing scrutiny over past emails where he framed the Instagram acquisition as a defensive move against competition. Meta argues that the market has since changed, with strong competition from TikTok, YouTube, and Apple's messaging services.The FTC claims Meta still dominates platforms for sharing content among friends and family, while alternatives like Snapchat and MeWe lack sufficient market presence. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has allowed the case to proceed but acknowledged the FTC faces a tough road. The trial will run through July and, if the FTC prevails, a second trial will determine remedies like a forced breakup. The case is one of several targeting alleged monopolistic practices by major tech firms, including Google, Amazon, and Apple.Facebook owner Meta faces existential threat at trial over Instagram, WhatsApp | ReutersThe Trump administration has repeatedly accused immigrants of serious criminal ties—such as gang leadership or terrorism—without backing those claims with evidence in court. Presumably because they aren't interested in immediately perjuring themselves. One high-profile example involved the FBI's arrest of a Salvadoran man in Virginia, publicly labeled a top MS-13 leader and terrorist. Yet the Justice Department dropped the sole charge—illegal gun possession—and instead moved to deport him without pursuing gang-related allegations in court. A similar case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported and later labeled a human trafficker, though no such charge appeared in legal filings. Officials also deported 238 Venezuelans alleged to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang, despite some having no criminal records. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended their imprisonment, citing national security, while declining to present supporting evidence. Legal experts caution that making unsupported public accusations risks undermining prosecutions and due process, as it can taint juries and violate Justice Department policy.Some judges have pushed back. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis emphasized that serious accusations should be vetted through the legal system, not just made in press conferences. Meanwhile, other alleged MS-13 members were charged through traditional indictments, showing the DOJ still uses evidence-backed prosecutions in some cases. Critics say the administration's approach mixes law enforcement with political messaging, leveraging public fear to justify aggressive immigration actions.Trump officials push immigrant gang message, but sometimes don't back it up in court | ReutersA group of Harvard University professors has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to the university. The lawsuit, brought by the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors and its national organization, argues that the administration is unlawfully targeting the school to suppress free speech and academic freedom. The review was announced amid ongoing scrutiny of elite universities over pro-Palestinian protests, diversity programs, and transgender policies.Federal agencies including the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, along with the General Services Administration, began investigating $255.6 million in contracts and $8.7 billion in multi-year grants. They demanded Harvard meet conditions to continue receiving funds, such as banning protester mask-wearing, eliminating DEI programs, cooperating with law enforcement, and revising departments allegedly involved in antisemitic harassment.The administration has cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination at federally funded institutions, as its legal basis. However, the plaintiffs argue that the government has not followed the proper legal process and is instead using funding threats to impose political viewpoints. Harvard law professor Andrew Crespo said the government cannot silence speech it disagrees with through funding leverage.Harvard professors sue over Trump's review of $9 billion in funding | 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: Fair Housing ActOn this day in legal history, April 11, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, a pivotal expansion of civil rights protections in the United States. Commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation was enacted just days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy of nonviolent activism heavily influenced its passage. The law made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin.It aimed to dismantle the systemic barriers that had long segregated American cities and suburbs, including redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices. Title VIII of the Act directly addressed these inequities and empowered the federal government to enforce fair housing standards for the first time. Though political resistance to housing integration had stalled similar legislation for years, the national mourning following Dr. King's death shifted public and congressional sentiment.Johnson, in a nationally televised address, described the signing as a tribute to Dr. King's life and a necessary step toward realizing the full promise of civil rights in America. Subsequent amendments expanded protections to include sex, disability, and familial status, making the Fair Housing Act one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws on the books. Enforcement mechanisms, however, remained a challenge, and litigation over housing discrimination has continued into the present day.The law has been central to major legal battles over zoning laws, gentrification, and access to affordable housing. It also laid the groundwork for subsequent legislation aimed at combating economic and racial segregation. While the Act did not instantly eliminate housing discrimination, it marked a legal turning point that recognized the home as a critical site of equality and opportunity.A small team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), created under Elon Musk's initiative to reduce government spending and staffing, has arrived at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), according to an internal email from the agency. While the team is working with FDIC leadership to identify internal efficiencies, it does not have access to sensitive or confidential bank data, including resolution plans, deposit insurance records, or examination materials. The FDIC emphasized that the DGE operatives are full-time federal employees working under formal interagency agreements and have not sought access to confidential information.DGE has previously drawn concern from industry participants during its visit to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to fears over data exposure. The FDIC oversees highly sensitive information about major U.S. banks and their failure plans, which regulators rely on during crises. The number and identity of DGE team members at the FDIC have not been disclosed, and the agency declined to comment further.The agency is also preparing for staff reductions, following the Trump administration's deferred resignation program that has already led to the loss of 500 FDIC employees. Additional buyouts and formal layoffs are expected soon. The timing of DGE's involvement comes as global markets react to new tariffs announced by President Trump, prompting concerns from former officials about weakening regulators' ability to respond to potential financial instability.DOGE Arrives at FDIC but Doesn't Have Access to Bank Data (2)At least three major law firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—are in talks with the Trump administration to reach a joint agreement that would commit over $300 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the White House. The potential deal is also intended to resolve federal investigations into the firms' diversity programs, which the administration has scrutinized for alleged discriminatory practices. If finalized, the arrangement would bring the total pledged in pro bono services from various firms to at least $640 million.President Trump, speaking at a Cabinet meeting, hinted that a handful of firms remain in negotiations, emphasizing that many firms have already paid significant sums or made concessions. He stated that he expects lawyers from participating firms to assist with policy efforts such as implementing tariffs and expanding coal mining.The administration has previously targeted several firms with executive orders for representing causes or clients viewed as oppositional to Trump's agenda. These orders have included punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and restricting federal access. Some firms—like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block—have successfully blocked these actions in court, while others like Paul Weiss settled by agreeing to pro bono contributions. Firms such as Skadden and Milbank preemptively negotiated similar deals.Trump Talks Deal With Three Massive Law Firms as Others FightA U.S. immigration judge is set to rule today on whether Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist at Columbia University, can be deported. Khalil, who holds Algerian citizenship and became a lawful U.S. permanent resident last year, was arrested last month at his New York City apartment and transferred to an immigration jail in rural Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for Khalil's removal under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his presence in the U.S. poses foreign policy risks due to his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.Rubio's letter to the court claims Khalil was involved in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” but does not accuse him of any crimes. Instead, Rubio argues the government can revoke legal status based solely on speech or associations if deemed harmful to U.S. interests. Khalil's attorneys say the case is an attempt to punish constitutionally protected speech and have called the letter politically motivated and authoritarian in tone.They are requesting to subpoena and depose Rubio as part of their defense. The immigration court hearing the case operates under the Department of Justice and is separate from the federal judiciary. Khalil is also suing in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that his arrest, detention, and transfer far from his legal team and family were unconstitutional.US immigration judge to decide whether Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil can be deported | ReutersPresident Trump signed a bill nullifying a revised IRS rule that would have broadened the definition of a “broker” to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges, or DeFi platforms. The rule, finalized in the final weeks of the Biden administration, was part of a broader IRS effort to tighten crypto tax enforcement and was rooted in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It would have required DeFi platforms to report user transactions to both the IRS and the users themselves.The crypto industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi platforms do not function like traditional brokers and lack access to user identities, making compliance impossible. Centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, by contrast, already meet these reporting requirements as intermediaries. Both the House and Senate voted in March to repeal the IRS rule through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn recent federal regulations with a majority vote.Trump, who has positioned himself as a pro-crypto candidate, had campaigned on promises to support digital asset innovation. Since taking office, he has formed a federal cryptocurrency working group and signed an executive order to establish a national bitcoin reserve.Trump signs bill to nullify expanded IRS crypto broker rule | ReutersThis week's closing theme takes us back to April 13, 1850, when Richard Wagner's opera Lohengrin premiered in Weimar under the baton of his friend and supporter, Franz Liszt. Wagner, one of the most influential and controversial figures in classical music, was then in political exile, and unable to attend the debut of what would become one of his most iconic works. Known for his revolutionary approach to opera—melding music, drama, and mythology—Wagner crafted Lohengrin as a sweeping, mystical tale of a knight of the Holy Grail who arrives in a swan-drawn boat to defend the innocent Elsa of Brabant. The opera's shimmering textures, leitmotif-driven score, and spiritual overtones would set the stage for his later monumental works like Tristan und Isolde and the Ring Cycle.Lohengrin remains best known for its third-act bridal chorus—“Here Comes the Bride”—but the opera's deeper themes of identity, trust, and the cost of forbidden questions give it lasting emotional and philosophical weight. Set in a quasi-medieval world laced with mystery, the opera tells of a hero who must depart the moment his name is asked, leaving love suspended in silence. Wagner's orchestration in Lohengrin is luminous and patient, often evoking shimmering water and distant prophecy, with long-breathed phrases that seem to float above time.As a closing theme for this week, Lohengrin invites reflection—on belief, on leadership, and on how history so often pivots on names, silence, and the tension between loyalty and doubt. Its premiere on April 13th marks not only a moment in Wagner's evolution as a composer but also a cultural point of departure, where German Romanticism began leaning toward something darker and more transcendental. We end the week, then, with the slow unfurling of Lohengrin's prelude: a gentle, ascending shimmer that begins almost imperceptibly, and rises—like the swan on the river—toward the unknown.This week, we close with the prelude to Lohengrin by Richard Wagner—music of undeniable beauty from a composer whose legacy includes both brilliance and deeply troubling beliefs. We share it for its artistry, not its ideology. Without further ado, Richard Wagner's Lohengrin, the prelude. 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

Andy and Rich discuss the Alexander Ovechkin NHL goals record, the Supreme Court's decisions in the Alien Enemies Act case and the the federal firing case, and the question of the tariffs' constitutionality.This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

This Day in Legal History: Patent Act of 1790On April 10, 1790, the United States passed its first patent law, the Patent Act of 1790, laying the groundwork for a legal framework that would protect inventors and promote innovation. This early legislation granted inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries for a period of 14 years, provided the invention was deemed "useful and important." It was signed into law by President George Washington and represented one of the earliest legal efforts by the new republic to encourage economic growth through technological advancement. The law established a board composed of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General, who were tasked with reviewing patent applications and deciding whether to approve them.Notably, the law gave the federal government broad discretion over what could be patented and required that a patent be granted only if the invention was new and useful. The first U.S. patent under this act was issued on July 31, 1790, to Samuel Hopkins for a process of making potash, a key industrial chemical. Although modest in scope, the law was revolutionary in its recognition of intellectual property as a public good worth safeguarding. It helped move the United States toward a more structured innovation economy, setting a precedent that influenced global norms on patent protection.The 1790 law was replaced just three years later by the Patent Act of 1793, which shifted the review process to a more administrative function, but the foundational principle—that inventors should have exclusive rights to their creations—remained intact. This early commitment to fostering invention through legal means helped spur the rapid technological growth that would define American industry in the 19th century and beyond. The act exemplified how the law could be used to incentivize creativity and economic development at a national scale.Bristol Myers Squibb successfully got a proposed class action lawsuit dismissed that had accused it of using fraudulent tactics to maintain a monopoly over its cancer drug, Pomalyst. The suit, led by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, claimed that Bristol Myers and its subsidiary Celgene illegally secured patents and filed sham lawsuits to delay the entry of generic versions of Pomalyst, which is used to treat multiple myeloma. However, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove that any of the six patents were obtained through fraud. He also found no evidence that the nine lawsuits Celgene filed between 2017 and 2020 against generic manufacturers like Teva and Mylan were baseless or intended to secure fraudulent settlements.The plaintiffs alleged that they had been overpaying for the drug since October 2020, the point at which generics could have entered the market if not for the alleged conduct. Pomalyst brought in $3.55 billion in sales in 2024, accounting for more than 7% of Bristol Myers' revenue. Celgene originally developed the drug, and Bristol Myers acquired the company in 2019. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.Bristol Myers wins dismissal of lawsuit alleging Pomalyst monopoly | ReutersThe Trump administration has frozen over $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University amid investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The freeze affects grants and contracts from several federal agencies, including health, education, agriculture, and defense. This move is part of a broader crackdown targeting universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests, diversity programs, and transgender policies. The administration previously warned 60 universities, including Cornell and Northwestern, about potential enforcement if they failed to address what it labeled as antisemitism.Cornell confirmed it received “stop work” orders from the defense department affecting research projects but said it hasn't been formally notified of the total funding freeze. Northwestern similarly acknowledged awareness of media reports but stated it hadn't received official notice. The university emphasized the freeze could endanger critical research, including projects on cybersecurity, pacemakers, and Alzheimer's treatment.This action follows similar measures taken against Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania. Columbia, which lost $400 million in funding, later agreed to administrative changes in exchange for potential reinstatement. Federal agents have also begun detaining and deporting some foreign student protesters, revoking visas in the process. Critics, including human rights groups, have voiced concerns over free speech, academic freedom, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab discrimination amid the escalating response to pro-Palestinian activism on campuses.US freezes funding for Cornell, Northwestern University in latest crackdownPresident Trump has issued a new executive order aimed at blocking state-level climate policies that seek to reduce fossil fuel use and limit carbon emissions. The directive instructs the U.S. attorney general to identify and challenge state laws related to climate change, environmental justice, ESG (environmental, social, and governance) standards, and carbon regulation. The move aligns with Trump's broader agenda to boost domestic fossil fuel production and roll back Democratic-led environmental initiatives.The order specifically targets policies in states like New York, Vermont, and California, including financial penalties on fossil fuel companies, California's cap-and-trade system, and climate-related lawsuits brought by state governments. Trump described these measures as ideologically driven and harmful to national energy and economic security.Governors Kathy Hochul (NY) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance, condemned the order, asserting states' rights to enact environmental protections. They reaffirmed their commitment to clean energy and climate resilience. The American Petroleum Institute supported Trump's move, framing it as a defense against unconstitutional state actions that burden oil and gas companies.Trump issues order to block state climate change policies | 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: Senate Approves Alaska PurchaseOn April 9, 1867, the United States Senate voted to ratify the Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska, approving the acquisition of the territory for $7.2 million. The deal, championed by Secretary of State William H. Seward, added over 586,000 square miles to U.S. territory. At the time, many Americans viewed the icy, remote land as a barren wasteland, mocking the transaction as “Seward's Folly” or “Seward's Icebox.” Despite public ridicule, Seward pursued the deal partly to prevent British expansion from neighboring Canada and to extend American commercial interests into the Pacific. Russia, for its part, saw little strategic or economic value in Alaska and feared it might lose the territory without compensation in a future conflict.The treaty passed in the Senate by a vote of 37 to 2, reflecting support among lawmakers despite popular skepticism. Legal authority for the purchase came through the treaty-making power of the executive branch, with Senate ratification required under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Once finalized, the transfer of sovereignty occurred in October 1867 in Sitka, with a formal ceremony marking Russia's departure.Criticism of the purchase subsided decades later following the Klondike Gold Rush and, eventually, the discovery of significant oil reserves. These developments drastically changed the public's perception of Alaska from frozen liability to strategic asset. The purchase also helped lay the groundwork for America's growing influence in the Pacific and Arctic regions.President Donald Trump announced that major law firms pledging $340 million in pro bono work would assist his administration with coal industry initiatives and international tariff negotiations. Speaking at a White House event, Trump said these firms—such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie—would provide legal support for leasing and regulatory issues in coal mining, as well as in talks with foreign countries on trade. While he didn't specify which firms would take on specific tasks, Trump emphasized their legal talent and claimed they were offering services “for the right price.”The announcement coincided with Trump signing executive orders invoking the Defense Production Act to increase coal mining and directing investments into advanced coal technology. He also said the Department of Justice would be tasked with challenging state and local regulations he views as harmful to miners. The law firm agreements came after Trump targeted several legal firms with directives that threaten their business, prompting lawsuits from Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block. Trump posted the agreements on Truth Social, stating the firms would work on causes like veterans' rights and combating antisemitism, although details on how their roles will be determined remain unclear.Trump Says He'll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, TariffsA group of 67 former top legal executives from companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Eli Lilly filed a legal brief condemning President Trump's executive orders targeting several major law firms. They argue that the orders violate the Constitution and threaten the independence of corporate legal counsel by coercing political loyalty through federal contract threats. The brief supports a lawsuit by Perkins Coie, one of the firms impacted by the orders, which claims the directives bar its attorneys from government buildings and jeopardize its clients' federal contracts.The former general counsels contend that Trump's actions don't just punish individual firms, but undermine the principle that companies should be free to choose their legal representation without fear of political retaliation. The brief highlights how the orders signal to businesses that hiring lawyers linked to Trump's critics could lead to government sanctions. Trump issued similar orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, and all three firms have secured temporary legal blocks against the measures.While some firms like Paul Weiss struck deals with Trump to avoid penalties—agreeing to provide pro bono work for causes aligned with his administration—others have pushed back. Four days prior, hundreds of law firms submitted their own brief supporting Perkins Coie. Trump's administration defends the orders as efforts to stop perceived political bias in Big Law.Former top lawyers at major companies decry Trump orders against law firms | ReutersAn immigration judge has given the U.S. government through today to present evidence justifying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident. Khalil was arrested in New York and transferred to a detention facility in rural Louisiana, sparking concern over due process and free speech rights. At Tuesday's hearing, Judge Jamee Comans made it clear that if the government cannot prove Khalil is deportable, she will dismiss the case by Friday. She also criticized delays in sharing evidence and emphasized the importance of Khalil's due process rights.Khalil's lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, claims the deportation effort is politically motivated and violates the First Amendment, suggesting that Khalil is being targeted for speaking out in support of Palestinians. The government argues Khalil should be deported under a Cold War-era law that allows removal if an immigrant is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, and also accuses him of omissions on his green card application—charges he denies.The case has drawn national attention, including a crowded virtual courtroom. A separate habeas petition is also under consideration in federal court, and Khalil cannot be deported while that process plays out. His wife, a U.S. citizen who is expecting their child this month, has been unable to visit him due to her pregnancy.US given one day to show evidence for deporting Columbia University protester Khalil | ReutersA federal judge has ordered President Trump's White House to temporarily lift access restrictions on the Associated Press (AP) while a lawsuit challenging the ban moves forward. The Trump administration had barred AP journalists from events like Oval Office briefings and Air Force One trips after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term, "Gulf of America," instead continuing to refer to the "Gulf of Mexico." U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding journalists based on viewpoint.The ruling, which takes effect Sunday to allow time for appeal, restores the AP's access to White House press events. McFadden emphasized that if some journalists are granted access, others cannot be denied for their editorial stance. The AP sued three senior Trump aides in February, claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech and lacked due process.AP reporters testified that the ban hindered their ability to cover the president, while Justice Department lawyers argued that access to presidential spaces is a privilege, not a right. Press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association welcomed the decision, calling it a win for independent journalism. The case remains ongoing, with a final ruling expected in the coming months.Judge lifts Trump White House restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds | 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: Seventeenth AmendmentOn April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially ratified, transforming the way U.S. senators are selected. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, a system intended by the framers to preserve state influence within the federal government. However, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this process had become widely criticized for being undemocratic and vulnerable to corruption, deadlocks, and backroom political deals.Progressive Era reformers pushed for change, arguing that direct election by the people would make senators more accountable and reduce the influence of powerful political machines. After years of public pressure and legislative debate, the Seventeenth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1912 and ratified by the necessary number of states the following year.The amendment mandates that senators be elected by the voters of each state, aligning the Senate more closely with democratic ideals already applied to the House of Representatives. It also established procedures for handling vacancies through temporary gubernatorial appointments followed by special elections.The ratification marked a major victory for advocates of electoral reform and remains one of the most significant changes to the structure of American democracy since the founding. It reshaped the relationship between the federal government and the people, moving power away from state political elites and toward the electorate.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into WK Kellogg over claims that the company may be misleading consumers by advertising some of its cereals as “healthy.” The probe focuses on popular products like Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and Frosted Flakes, which the state alleges contain petroleum-based artificial colorings linked to health issues such as hyperactivity and obesity. Paxton criticized the company for continuing to use these dyes in U.S. products while removing them from versions sold in Canada and Europe. He argued that it is deceptive to market cereals containing such ingredients as healthy. WK Kellogg has not yet commented on the investigation.Texas opens probe into WK Kellogg over health claims | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a federal judge's order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran man who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The Justice Department argued that the lower court overstepped its authority and that the U.S. cannot guarantee swift results in international negotiations, especially under tight deadlines. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had found no legal basis for Abrego Garcia's arrest or removal and ordered his return by 11:59 p.m. Monday, calling his deportation "wholly lawless."Abrego Garcia had previously won a 2019 court order protecting him from deportation due to threats from gangs in El Salvador. Despite this, he was deported on March 15 after being stopped and questioned by ICE. The administration claims he is affiliated with MS-13, but no charges have been filed, and his attorneys deny the allegation. The Supreme Court filing contends that while deporting him to El Salvador was a procedural error, the removal itself was lawful. The case is part of broader legal challenges to the Trump administration's aggressive immigration tactics and its attempts to sidestep judicial checks on deportation practices.Trump asks US Supreme Court to pause order to return man deported to El Salvador in error | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has blocked President Donald Trump from removing two Democratic members of federal labor boards, reversing a previous decision and restoring legal protections for their positions. The D.C. Circuit Court, in a 7-4 vote, reinstated lower court rulings that barred Trump from firing Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court reaffirmed long-standing laws that only allow such removals for neglect, malfeasance, or inefficiency—not at-will.Trump's administration argued that these protections infringe on presidential authority, and plans to appeal, potentially setting up a Supreme Court showdown. If the high court agrees to hear the case, it could revisit decades-old precedent that preserves agency independence, with potential ripple effects on bodies like the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission.The judges noted that Wilcox and Harris's roles primarily involve adjudicating individual cases, not shaping executive policy, making them constitutionally protected from political dismissal. Without them, the boards would be paralyzed, with thousands of pending employee appeals left unresolved. This legal fight is part of Trump's broader effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, a push that critics say threatens the checks and balances built into administrative law.US appeals court blocks Trump from removing Democrats from labor boards | 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

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

This Day in Legal History:  Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | 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:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — 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 latest news on the Venezuelan deportation case, Trump's fight against Big Law, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

This Day in Legal History: Smith v. AllwrightOn April 3, 1944, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Smith v. Allwright, reshaping the landscape of voting rights in the American South. The case centered on Lonnie E. Smith, a Black voter from Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party's primary election due to a party rule that only allowed white voters to participate. At the time, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election in many Southern states, as the party dominated politics, making exclusion from the primary tantamount to disenfranchisement.The Texas Democratic Party argued that, as a private organization, it had the right to determine its own membership and voting rules. However, the Court, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, held that primaries were an integral part of the electoral process and could not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The justices concluded that excluding Black voters from primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.This ruling effectively overturned the Court's 1935 decision in Grovey v. Townsend, which had upheld the use of white primaries. The Smith decision marked a critical step toward dismantling the legal architecture of Jim Crow voter suppression. While states continued to use other tactics to limit Black political power, the ruling energized civil rights activists and laid the foundation for future litigation.By reasserting federal authority over state electoral practices, Smith v. Allwright signaled a turning point in the judicial battle against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. It also demonstrated the Court's growing willingness to confront systemic racism in voting, a commitment that would deepen during the civil rights era. This case is remembered as one of the pivotal moments in the long struggle for voting rights in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA's authority to deny applications for flavored vaping products, supporting actions taken during the Biden administration under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The unanimous ruling rejected arguments from companies like Triton Distribution and Vapetasia LLC, which claimed the FDA unfairly imposed new testing requirements and ignored their marketing plans. These companies had applied to sell flavors like “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.”The Court found the FDA's approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA's decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies' marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.Though the ruling solidifies the FDA's regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)Elon Musk's time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization's influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.Musk's recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla's 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk's contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group's progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn't committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP NewsPresident Donald Trump announced a new agreement with law firm Milbank, marking another chapter in the growing divide among U.S. law firms over how to handle pressure from his administration. According to Trump's Truth Social post, Milbank initiated the deal, which includes a commitment to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes like veterans' support and combating antisemitism.The agreement comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to punish firms that have opposed or challenged his policies. Several law firms—such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have filed lawsuits seeking to block executive orders they claim were retaliatory and violated constitutional protections of free speech and due process. Federal judges recently issued temporary blocks on parts of those orders.In contrast, other firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr have opted for settlement-style deals with the administration to avoid similar sanctions. Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, reportedly described the agreement as aligned with the firm's values and praised the productive talks with the administration.This situation underscores a growing rift in the legal community: some firms are resisting what they see as political coercion, while others are choosing cooperation to preserve their standing with the federal government.Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | ReutersPresident Trump announced a sweeping new tariff policy during a Rose Garden press conference, unveiling a "reciprocal" trade strategy aimed at countering what he described as decades of unfair treatment by U.S. trading partners. Holding a copy of a government report titled Foreign Trade Barriers, Trump declared that the U.S. will now impose tariffs that are approximately half the rate other countries charge American exports—but with a minimum baseline tariff of 10%, and many rates going significantly higher.Countries hit with new tariffs include:* China: 34%* European Union: 20%* Japan: 24%* South Korea: 25%* Switzerland: 31%* United Kingdom: 10%* Taiwan: 32%* Malaysia: 24%* India: 26%* Brazil: 10%* Indonesia: 32%* Vietnam: 46%* Singapore: 10%Trump also confirmed a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles, stacking on the above-referenced rates, effective at midnight, and pointed to motorcycle tariffs as a key example of longstanding trade imbalances. He argued that U.S. manufacturers face rates as high as 75% abroad, while the U.S. imposes just 2.4%.The president justified the move as necessary to protect American jobs and industry, singling out countries like Canada and Mexico for benefiting from U.S. subsidies and defense spending. Detroit autoworker Brian Pannebecker spoke in support, calling Trump's actions a hopeful step toward revitalizing shuttered factories.While Trump emphasized that the tariffs fall short of full reciprocity to avoid overwhelming allies, he made clear the era of what he called “economic surrender” was over. The announcement included plans to sign an executive order formalizing the new tariff regime, which boosted U.S. stock futures as markets reacted positively to the aggressive trade stance. Oh no I'm sorry, I got that wrong: stock futures tanked.  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: MA Enacts Anti-Vietnam War LegislationOn April 2, 1970, Massachusetts enacted a bold piece of legislation challenging the U.S. government's involvement in the Vietnam War. The law stated that no resident of Massachusetts, whether inducted or already serving in the military, could be compelled to participate in armed hostilities abroad unless Congress had formally declared war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. At the time, the Vietnam War had escalated significantly without such a formal declaration, raising widespread constitutional concerns. This state-level defiance of federal military policy was one of the clearest legal confrontations to emerge from domestic antiwar sentiment during the era.Supporters of the law aimed to provoke a judicial review of the war's legality by forcing the issue into the courts. The ultimate hope was that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept the case and directly address whether the war was unconstitutional due to the lack of a Congressional declaration. However, the Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, a move that disappointed advocates but was consistent with the Court's cautious approach to politically sensitive war powers questions. The case was instead relegated to the lower federal courts, where it lost much of its political and legal momentum.This episode underscored the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, especially in areas of foreign policy and military engagement. It also highlighted the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the War Powers Clause and the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. Although the Massachusetts law was largely symbolic and never led to a judicial rebuke of the Vietnam War, it marked a significant moment in the legal resistance to undeclared wars.Willkie Farr & Gallagher has agreed to commit at least $100 million in pro bono legal services supporting causes aligned with conservative ideals, according to a public announcement by President Trump. This move follows similar flagrant displays of cowardice by other major law firms, Paul Weiss and Skadden, in the face of Trump's recent executive orders targeting firms based on political associations and past legal work. The deal allows Willkie to avoid a potentially damaging executive order by committing to initiatives like supporting veterans, promoting fairness in the justice system, and fighting antisemitism.Willkie's leadership acknowledged the difficult nature of the decision in a firmwide email, saying they evaluated the risks of resistance versus cooperation and ultimately chose to protect the firm's interests and stakeholders. The firm also pledged to uphold laws on employment practices, maintain bipartisan client representation, and continue work for underrepresented groups. Trump emphasized that Willkie will commit to “merit-based hiring” and avoid what he called “illegal DEI discrimination,” with the firm agreeing to outside legal oversight for compliance.Doug Emhoff, a partner at Willkie and husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly opposed the deal and urged leadership to resist. Just before the announcement, Emhoff warned students at Georgetown Law that democracy and the rule of law are under threat, and that lawyers must defend both.Trump Strikes Deal With Willkie, Law Firm of Doug Emhoff (2)Doug Emhoff's law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher reaches deal with Trump | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Justice Department's corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be filed again. Judge Dale Ho rejected the DOJ's request for a dismissal without prejudice, citing concerns that leaving the case open could make Adams appear beholden to the Trump administration, especially on immigration enforcement. The decision aligns with an independent legal opinion commissioned by the court, which warned that the threat of reindictment could create the perception that Adams' actions were motivated by federal pressure rather than public service.The original charges accused Adams of accepting illegal contributions and favors from Turkish officials, but Adams pleaded not guilty and maintained that the case was politically motivated retaliation for his criticism of President Biden's immigration policies. In a surprising turn, the Trump administration backed Adams, arguing the prosecution interfered with his re-election efforts and hindered cooperation on deportation efforts.The case became a political flashpoint in the run-up to the November mayoral election, with Adams facing low approval ratings and a field of Democratic challengers, including former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Multiple prosecutors resigned rather than follow the DOJ directive to drop the case, raising concerns about politicization within the department. Judge Ho's ruling effectively ends the legal battle but leaves lingering questions about Justice Department independence and the political forces behind the case.NYC Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case dismissed, cannot be brought again | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major case that could determine whether South Carolina can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. The state, led by Republican officials, wants to exclude the organization from the Medicaid program because it provides abortions, even though federal funds cannot be used for abortion services. At issue is whether Medicaid recipients have the right to sue states under federal law to access care from any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood.The case stems from a 2018 decision by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, who ordered Planned Parenthood's removal from the state's Medicaid program. The organization and a patient sued under an 1871 civil rights law, arguing that the move violated patients' rights to choose their healthcare providers. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that South Carolina's actions were unlawful.Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina offer a range of services to Medicaid patients, including cancer screenings, contraception, and general health exams. The state, supported by the Trump administration and represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that the Medicaid law does not grant individuals the right to sue.The Supreme Court has addressed elements of this dispute before but has not yet ruled on the key legal question: whether Medicaid enrollees can challenge states that exclude providers for political or ideological reasons. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from carrying out mass firings of federal employees still in their probationary period, ruling that the government must follow established procedures for large-scale layoffs. The case stems from the administration's February dismissal of about 24,500 workers without prior notice to states or local governments. U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland found the move likely violated federal law and ordered that only those employees living or working in the 19 suing states and Washington, D.C. must be reinstated.This decision narrows an earlier, broader ruling and will remain in effect while the lawsuit continues. The plaintiffs, led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, argue the firings were politically motivated and part of a broader effort to dismantle the federal workforce. While the administration claims poor performance was behind the dismissals, the judge noted that probationary status alone doesn't justify bypassing legal protections.The Trump administration has appealed the decision, arguing Bredar overstepped his authority. An appellate court has so far declined to pause the ruling. The case highlights growing tension between the Trump administration's push to reshape the federal government and the legal limits on executive power over civil service employment.US judge blocks Trump administration from firing federal employees on probation | ReutersPresident Trump is expected to announce a sweeping new set of tariffs today at 4 p.m. ET, but no one seems to know exactly what the nut job in chief has in store. Speculation is rampant, with previous threats including 200% duties on European alcohol imports, and reports suggesting a possible 20% universal tariff. Businesses, investors, and world leaders are on edge, bracing for what could be a dramatic escalation in global trade tensions.Confusion reigns across industries—from winemakers in Spain who feel caught in a trade war they never asked for, to U.S. auto suppliers now recalculating their costs under layered tariffs that could exceed 50%. Manufacturing data shows signs of contraction, and fears of stagflation are emerging. Stocks are slipping, gold is surging, and key trading partners like the EU, Mexico, and Canada are preparing potential countermeasures. Trump, meanwhile, has dubbed today “Liberation Day,” further muddying the policy waters.With the exact scope and structure of the duties still unknown, the only certainty right now is uncertainty.Trump Tariffs Live: Global stock market and trade war fears as April 2 announcement looms | 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: Federal Minimum Wage IncreaseOn this day in legal history, April 1, 1991, the federal minimum wage in the United States increased to $4.25 per hour. This followed an earlier increase on April 1, 1990, when the wage rose from $3.35 to $3.80 per hour. These back-to-back adjustments marked the first changes to the federal minimum wage since 1981, when it had been set at $3.35 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The 1990 and 1991 hikes were part of a broader legislative effort to address inflation and stagnating wages for low-income workers, especially in service industries.The wage increase was included in the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1989, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. The law aimed to gradually raise wages while minimizing economic disruption for employers. Despite concerns from some business groups, the phased approach allowed companies time to adjust. Labor advocates, meanwhile, argued the increase was still insufficient for workers to meet basic living expenses, particularly in urban areas with high costs of living.The minimum wage has long been a point of contention in U.S. labor policy, seen alternately as a lifeline for workers or a constraint on small businesses. While federal adjustments have been relatively infrequent, many states and municipalities have set higher local minimum wages. As of this writing, the last federal minimum wage increase occurred on July 24, 2009, when it rose to $7.25 per hour—where it remains today. This stagnation has reignited debates over the role of the federal government in ensuring a living wage. The April 1, 1991 increase remains a reminder of the complex balancing act between economic policy, labor rights, and legislative compromise.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit affiliated with the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, seeking an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argued that being denied the exemption violates their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and church autonomy. While federal and state laws do allow religious organizations to opt out of unemployment insurance if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes,” Wisconsin determined the group's services were primarily secular and charitable. The organizations involved provide support such as job training and care services for people with disabilities but do not require staff or clients to be religious.During arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Wisconsin's approach unfairly favored some religious organizations over others. Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the state seemingly picking winners among religious groups. Catholic Charities contends their mission is rooted in faith, even if their services don't explicitly promote religious doctrine. Wisconsin previously granted a similar exemption to one of their subsidiaries, prompting the current challenge.Critics, including me, warn that granting the exemption could allow large religiously affiliated organizations, including major hospital systems, to bypass various regulations and potentially strip employees of benefits like unemployment insurance. A ruling is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear another major case involving Catholic interests on April 30, regarding the proposed creation of a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court leans toward Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersYesterday, Nokia and Amazon announced they had resolved an international legal battle over alleged patent infringement related to video streaming and cloud computing technologies. The dispute centered on Nokia's claims that Amazon improperly used its patented technology to power high-quality video on platforms like Prime Video and Twitch. Nokia had filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions, including the U.S., Germany, the UK, India, and the European Unified Patent Court.Amazon, in turn, countersued in Delaware, accusing Nokia of infringing its cloud computing patents related to Amazon Web Services (AWS), including infrastructure and security technologies. A German court had previously ruled in Nokia's favor, finding that Amazon had used its technology without proper licensing, though Amazon stated the decision wouldn't affect its Prime Video users in Germany.The companies have now signed a multi-year patent agreement, resolving all pending litigation under confidential terms. The agreement brings an end to multiple lawsuits and suggests ongoing cooperation between the two tech giants moving forward.Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute | ReutersThe National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing 150,000 federal employees, filed a lawsuit aiming to stop President Donald Trump from eliminating collective bargaining rights for a large segment of the federal workforce. The suit, filed in Washington, D.C. federal court, challenges an executive order Trump issued the previous week that exempted over a dozen federal agencies from having to negotiate with employee unions. The NTEU argues that the order violates federal labor laws and the U.S. Constitution.Trump's order was followed by legal action from eight federal agencies against multiple union affiliates, attempting to invalidate existing contracts. The administration claims the move is necessary for national security and to streamline agency operations, including the ability to discipline or terminate employees more easily, particularly amid budget cuts.The NTEU counters that the national security rationale is a pretext, accusing Trump of using the order to pursue political goals and retaliate against unions that have opposed his policies. The union seeks a court ruling to block the order and prevent agencies from enforcing it, warning that the action would severely undermine federal workers' rights and job protections.Union sues to block Trump from ending collective bargaining for many federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at a well-meaning but flawed proposal in New York: a so-called “noise tax” aimed at reducing helicopter sound pollution. The bill would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for aircraft that exceed a fixed noise threshold, but it doesn't actually tax sound. Instead, it taxes occupancy—a fundamental mismatch if the goal is to reduce the auditory burden on residents.If noise is the harm, we should tax noise directly. A static decibel cutoff misses how sound actually impacts people—context matters. A helicopter flying over the harbor at noon is not the same as one hovering over a quiet park at 6 a.m., but under this bill, both would be taxed identically if they're equally loud. Worse, there's no incentive to alter flight paths or schedules to reduce disruption, nor any reward for operators who try to minimize their noise without hitting the “quiet” threshold.A well-designed externality tax should reflect actual social harm and promote behavior that reduces it. Congestion pricing in New York does this well by varying fees based on time and place. France's noise tax on planes is another good example—it charges more for louder aircraft flying at more sensitive times. New York's bill, by contrast, is more of a symbolic luxury tax that may make air travel slightly pricier but won't make the skies meaningfully quieter.If the goal is truly to reduce noise, the city needs to tax decibels—not passengers.New York's helicopter noise tax misses the target 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: Civilian Conservation Corps Created by FDROn this day in legal history, March 31, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Senate Bill S. 598, creating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) as part of his sweeping New Deal agenda. The CCC was a rapid-response effort to the economic devastation of the Great Depression, designed to provide immediate employment to young, unemployed men. Within weeks of its creation, the program began enrolling thousands, ultimately putting over 3 million men to work during its nine-year run.The CCC operated under the Department of Labor, War Department, and Department of Agriculture, reflecting its blend of social welfare, environmental stewardship, and federal coordination. Workers were paid $30 per month, $25 of which was sent home to support their families—a vital lifeline during a time of widespread poverty. Projects included reforestation, flood control, soil erosion prevention, and the construction of trails and facilities in national and state parks.Legally, the CCC represented an expansion of federal authority into economic and environmental realms, and it raised constitutional questions about the scope of executive power during peacetime. While the Supreme Court would later strike down some New Deal programs, the CCC escaped judicial invalidation, in part due to its voluntary nature and its framing as a public works program rather than a federal jobs guarantee.The CCC's legal structure helped shape future federal employment and environmental programs, and it laid the groundwork for later conservation efforts like the Soil Conservation Service and aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency. March 31, 1933, thus marks not just the birth of a New Deal agency, but a foundational moment in the legal history of federal labor and environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit linked to the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, seeking a religious exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argues that the state's denial of the exemption violates the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and church autonomy. Wisconsin law allows such exemptions only for organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes," a standard the state Supreme Court ruled the charities failed to meet due to their primarily secular social service work.The Catholic Charities Bureau, founded in 1917, provides services like job placement and home visits for people with disabilities but does not require employees or service recipients to be Catholic. After one of its affiliates was granted an exemption in a separate case, the Bureau and other affiliates sought similar treatment in 2016. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2024 decision upheld the tax requirement, stating the group's activities were charitable rather than religious.The case has broader implications for how courts distinguish between religious and secular work, with critics warning that a ruling in favor of the charities could allow large religiously affiliated organizations to bypass many government regulations, jeopardizing benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The decision is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear a related case on April 30 concerning a proposed taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court to hear Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersCatholic Charities Case Poised to Shape Religious Tax ExemptionsTwo federal judges have temporarily blocked major parts of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, which had been involved in legal efforts against his administration. The firms sued the Trump administration, arguing that the orders violated constitutional protections of free expression and due process. U.S. District Judge John Bates criticized Trump's order against Jenner & Block as “reprehensible,” especially for targeting the firm's pro bono work on behalf of immigrants and transgender individuals. He warned the order threatened the firm's existence by aiming to cancel its clients' federal contracts and restrict access to federal facilities and courts.In a separate ruling, Judge Richard Leon blocked similar provisions in the order against WilmerHale, calling it retaliatory and a threat to the public interest and justice system. However, he allowed a clause suspending the firm's security clearances to stand. Trump has signed orders targeting five law firms to date, and several—including Perkins Coie—have already challenged them in court with partial success.Meanwhile, law firms Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss reached deals with the White House to avoid being targeted. Skadden agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal work and implement merit-based hiring, while Paul Weiss pledged $40 million toward mutually agreed causes. The executive orders mainly cited the firms' past involvement in investigations into Trump, especially the Mueller probe. Critics argue the orders are politically motivated attempts to punish opposition and intimidate legal advocates.Judges block Trump orders targeting two law firms as Skadden cuts deal | ReutersTwo labor agency officials fired by President Donald Trump—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—will not be immediately reinstated, following a decision by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court declined to pause its earlier order that temporarily blocked lower court rulings which had reinstated the officials. Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker sided with the administration, while Judge Patricia Millett dissented.This legal battle tests the limits of presidential authority to remove officials from independent agencies, despite statutory protections meant to insulate them from political pressure. While trial courts previously ruled the firings were unlawful, the appeals court has halted those decisions from taking effect for now. The panel's latest order did not include an explanation of its reasoning.Wilcox and Harris may still ask the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's ruling, but Sunday's denial of an administrative stay could influence their next steps. Meanwhile, a broader decision on whether Congress can limit the president's power to fire certain agency officials is expected to be taken up in oral arguments scheduled for May 16. The issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, given its potential to reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.Fired Agency Officials Lose Attempt at Immediate ReinstatementFrench antitrust regulators fined Apple €150 million (about $162.4 million) for abusing its dominant market position through its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) tool, marking the first time any regulator has penalized the company over this feature. The ATT tool, introduced by Apple on iPhones and iPads, allows users to control which apps can track their activity. While Apple framed it as a privacy measure, digital advertisers and mobile gaming companies argued it made advertising more difficult and disproportionately impacted smaller publishers reliant on third-party data.The French Competition Authority found that while privacy protection is a legitimate goal, Apple's implementation of ATT was neither necessary nor proportionate and unfairly favored its own services. The decision followed complaints from several advertising and media associations, who hailed the ruling as a major win for their industries.Despite the fine, Apple is not currently required to change the tool's design. However, regulators emphasized that it is Apple's responsibility to ensure compliance going forward. Apple, expressing disappointment with the decision, noted that investigations into ATT are ongoing in other European countries including Germany, Italy, Poland, and Romania.Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool | 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:  Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim ArkOn March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship.The Senate's vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest.This isn't a technical policy disagreement—it's a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB's rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure.The financial industry's immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They'll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment's reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they're looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale's clients, revoke lawyers' security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller's investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.Trump criticized Mueller's investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump's agenda.Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don't operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants.The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT's argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT's funding under Trump's directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide.Kennelly's order represents a legal pushback against Trump's broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight.The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts.Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved.The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications.The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg's impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court.The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration's handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability.Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff.This week's closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands.While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it's a musical inversion of Paganini's theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano's depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it's tender, grand, and full of longing.This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional punch. It's the kind of music that doesn't need explanation—it just resonates.Rachmaninoff, ever the late Romantic in a century veering toward modernism, poured his soul into his music. This variation, placed deep in a virtuosic whirlwind, emerges like a moment of clarity—an unguarded confession in a storm. Let it carry you out this week. 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: President Johnson Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an extraordinary move that underscored his deep hostility to racial equality and his resistance to Reconstruction efforts. The bill, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Civil War, aimed to grant full citizenship to formerly enslaved people and guarantee their basic civil rights. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who remained loyal to the Union, used his veto power to block progress for freedmen, claiming the bill infringed on states' rights and unfairly favored Black Americans over whites. His justification was steeped in racism, couching white supremacy in the language of constitutional interpretation.Johnson's veto message argued that Black Americans were not yet qualified for citizenship and that extending such rights would “operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.” He blatantly ignored the atrocities of slavery and the urgent need for federal protections, given the widespread violence and oppression freedmen faced in the South. His opposition wasn't just a political miscalculation—it was a moral failure and a betrayal of the Union victory. Johnson actively emboldened white supremacist groups and Southern legislatures seeking to reassert control through Black Codes and racial terror.Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto—marking the first time in American history that a major piece of legislation was enacted over a presidential veto. This moment laid the groundwork for the 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Johnson's veto, however, remains a stark example of how executive power can be wielded to delay justice and reinforce structural racism.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plans to revoke a controversial interpretive rule that applied certain credit card protections to “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products. This move follows a lawsuit filed by the Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents major BNPL providers like PayPal, Klarna, Block, and Zip. In a joint court filing, the CFPB and FTA asked a federal judge to pause litigation while the agency works on rolling back the rule.The rule, issued in May 2024, treated BNPL plans like credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act, requiring providers to offer billing statements, handle disputes, and process refunds. It officially took effect in July, but the CFPB allowed a grace period for compliance. The FTA argued the CFPB overstepped its authority by reclassifying pay-in-four products—short-term, no-interest loans—without formal rulemaking or understanding the distinct nature of BNPL.Despite some early industry cooperation and encouragement from the CFPB for other regulators to follow suit, fintech firms claimed the rule created regulatory confusion by misapplying standards meant for revolving credit. House Republicans tried to overturn the rule legislatively last year but failed.The case, Financial Technology Association v. CFPB, remains on hold while the CFPB prepares formal steps to rescind the rule.CFPB Plans to Revoke Buy Now, Pay Later Rule Fintechs Fought (1)A federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, denied the Justice Department's attempt to disqualify her from overseeing Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm. The DOJ accused Howell of bias, pointing to remarks she made in public settings that criticized Trump and referenced his ties to Fusion GPS. In their motion, DOJ officials claimed she showed “partiality” and “animus” toward the president, citing her characterization of Trump having a “bee in his bonnet” over past political investigations.Howell sharply rebuked the motion, calling it an “ad hominem” attack intended to undermine judicial integrity rather than engage with the legal merits. She emphasized that the parties would receive fair treatment and dismissed the disqualification effort as an attempt to preemptively discredit an unfavorable outcome.The case stems from a Trump executive order aimed at punishing law firms perceived as politically hostile, including Perkins Coie, by restricting their federal building access and terminating government contracts with their clients. Perkins Coie argued the order caused immediate and severe business harm, including the loss of a long-standing client. Trump has since issued similar orders against other firms, such as Jenner & Block.The DOJ's attempt to remove Howell reflects a broader pattern of politicized efforts to delegitimize judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump. Meanwhile, a prior ethics complaint against Howell, filed by Rep. Elise Stefanik over earlier comments she made about the erosion of truth in public discourse, is still pending.Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight (2)A federal appeals court has refused to pause a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate over 17,000 federal workers fired during a mass purge of probationary employees across six government agencies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had not shown that the district judge erred in finding the firings were likely unlawful. At issue is the role of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which Judge William Alsup said overstepped its authority by ordering the firings despite lacking the legal power to do so.The affected agencies include the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Some agencies claimed to have fired only a few hundred employees, while others—such as the Treasury and Agriculture Departments—terminated thousands. The fired employees were mostly probationary workers, often with less than two years in their roles, though some had longer federal service.The ruling doesn't prevent agencies from terminating probationary workers entirely, but it criticizes the centralized, OPM-directed method used. The Trump administration said it is working to reinstate the workers, placing them on paid leave for now, and has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.This case parallels another decision out of Maryland, where a judge ordered 25,000 similar reinstatements across 18 agencies, though on different legal grounds. That ruling has also been allowed to stand while under appeal.Appeals court won't pause ruling that forced US to reinstate federal workers | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, Italy is attempting to tax the illusion of “free” on the internet—and I wrote about why that's a dangerous turn in VAT policy. In this piece, I walk through a recent move by Italian tax authorities to treat signing up for social media accounts as taxable barter transactions. The core claim is that when users hand over their personal data in exchange for access to a platform like Facebook or LinkedIn, a “supply for consideration” has occurred under EU VAT law. That would make the transaction taxable—even though no money changes hands.I argued that while user data undeniably has value, the theory stretches the purpose of VAT well beyond its policy design. VAT is supposed to be a consumption tax on goods and services, not a levy on intangible exchanges of attention or personal information. If this theory holds, Italy wouldn't just be taxing social media—it would be opening the door to taxing nearly every online interaction where data changes hands.I also pointed out that VAT requires a tax base, and valuing user data at the point of account creation is speculative at best. The market value of data depends on aggregation and use over time, not on the individual transaction. Plus, data isn't “consumed” in the way goods or traditional services are—it's copied, repurposed, and monetized indefinitely. That doesn't sit comfortably with the core logic of a consumption tax.Finally, I highlighted how this approach could ripple across the EU, creating regulatory chaos. If a cookie consent or an email sign-up becomes a taxable event, we risk converting the very architecture of the internet into a VAT trap. Italy's frustration with digital tax avoidance is understandable—but this isn't the right solution.​​Italy—Where Creating A Social Media Account May Be A Taxable Event This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O'ConnorOn this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O'Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court's composition.O'Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O'Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O'Connor's presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation's highest judicial institution.President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm's access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block's former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner's attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.Trump's broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC's funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress's legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress's broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC's subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution's assignment of legislative powers to Congress.The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | ReutersA high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump's support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state's top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel's campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he's made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it's time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today's drivers can choose where to fuel up.Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax 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: Scottsboro Boys ArrestedOn this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg's court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment.Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | ReutersOn March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana's congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | ReutersThe Justice Department, under President Trump's direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who's dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn't end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we're being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump's order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ's probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn't just threatening lawsuits—it's undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump MemoCalifornia's new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it's not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California's sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world's richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don't create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won't solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city's budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don't need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.Transparency Alone Won't Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain 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: Last Quaker Executed for Religious Beliefs in USOn March 24, 1661, William Leddra was executed in Boston, becoming the last Quaker in the American colonies to be put to death solely for his religious beliefs. Leddra, a devout Quaker, had previously been banished from Massachusetts under the colony's anti-Quaker laws but returned in defiance of the order. His return led to his arrest, imprisonment in harsh conditions through the winter, and eventual execution by hanging on Boston Common. His death marked the culmination of a brutal period of religious persecution in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts, where Quakers were seen as heretical threats to civil and religious order.Between 1659 and 1661, four Quakers—Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra—were executed under laws banning Quakers from the colony. Their trials and punishments drew condemnation from other colonies and even from England. Leddra's hanging, in particular, caught the attention of King Charles II, who soon after issued a royal order halting capital punishment for religious dissent in Massachusetts. This effectively ended the execution of Quakers in the colonies.The persecution stemmed from Puritan authorities' intolerance of dissent and fear of Quaker evangelism, which rejected formal clergy and embraced equality, pacifism, and direct spiritual experience. Quakers continued to face fines, whippings, and imprisonment, but the death penalty was no longer enforced. Leddra's martyrdom, like that of his fellow Friends, became a symbol of religious freedom's cost and the struggle for tolerance in early America. His execution helped galvanize early opposition to theocratic rule and contributed to evolving colonial attitudes toward religious liberty.Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp alleged in a firmwide email that rival law firms attempted to take advantage of the firm's vulnerability following a March 14 executive order from President Donald Trump. The order directed federal agencies to sever contracts with Paul Weiss clients, prompting the firm to negotiate a deal with Trump rather than pursue litigation. Karp expressed disappointment that instead of receiving support, competitors tried to poach both clients and attorneys during the turmoil.The deal Paul Weiss struck included backing off diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and committing $40 million to pro bono work aligned with Trump administration priorities. Karp stressed that the administration is not selecting or approving the firm's matters. He acknowledged internal backlash and intense emotions over the firm's course of action but maintained that litigation would have likely jeopardized the firm's future, even with a legal victory.Perkins Coie, targeted by a similar March 6 order, has chosen to sue and has already lost clients as a result. On March 21, Trump issued an additional executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to sanction attorneys and firms pursuing what the administration deems frivolous or vexatious litigation against the government.Paul Weiss Chairman Accuses Rival Firms of Pursuing Clients (1)Law firm Paul Weiss defends deal with Trump as lawyers sound alarm | Reuters23andMe Holding Co. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as it seeks to restructure and pursue a sale of the business. Despite financial challenges, the company plans to keep operating during the court-supervised process. The move is intended to help reduce costs, address legal and lease obligations, and stabilize operations.Once valued at $3.5 billion after going public in 2021, the DNA testing company has since struggled financially. Court filings list $277.4 million in assets and $214.7 million in liabilities. It secured up to $35 million in debtor-in-possession financing from JMB Capital Partners to support its operations during the bankruptcy.Co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who attempted unsuccessfully to take the company private earlier this month, has stepped down as CEO but will remain on the board. Joe Selsavage has been named interim CEO. The board's special committee chair, Mark Jensen, expressed hope that the bankruptcy process will allow 23andMe to address its challenges more effectively.23andMe Starts Chapter 11 Process, Co-Founder Steps Down - BloombergAt a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg criticized Trump administration lawyers for being “intemperate and disrespectful” in filings related to a case blocking the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The administration used the rarely invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removing alleged members of Tren de Aragua without immigration court orders. Boasberg issued a 14-day freeze on those deportations, questioning the administration's interpretation of the law and whether the individuals had any real opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members.The administration filed documents accusing Boasberg of a "judicial fishing expedition," prompting his public rebuke. Boasberg emphasized the importance of professional conduct in court and asked the Justice Department to explain by Tuesday whether it had violated his order by allowing two deportation flights to land in El Salvador after his ruling.Though Trump has said he would not defy court orders, the situation has raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. Some deportees were reportedly refused by El Salvador's government for not fitting the criteria or being the wrong nationality or gender. Lawyers for the migrants argue the administration's reliance on the Alien Enemies Act could lead to broad and discriminatory applications.Judge in deportations case says Trump administration lawyers were 'disrespectful' | ReutersA U.S. federal judge in Chicago has approved a highly unusual class-action settlement against facial recognition firm Clearview AI that doesn't include an immediate cash payout for affected individuals. Instead, under the agreement, class members—estimated to number between 65,000 and 125,000—may receive a 23% equity stake in the company. This could eventually translate into monetary compensation if Clearview is sold, merges, or goes public.The lawsuit accused Clearview of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by scraping billions of facial images from the internet and using them without consent. Clearview denied any wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman called the settlement “novel” but fair, emphasizing that the equity share isn't speculative, given the company's estimated valuation of up to $225 million. Based on that figure, the fund could reach $51.75 million.As an alternative to equity, a court-appointed official may require Clearview to pay 17% of its post-settlement revenue in cash by 2027. The deal also drew criticism from 22 states and D.C., which argued that the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—nearly 40% of the settlement value—were excessive. Coleman defended the fees, noting that such awards are typical in the 7th Circuit.The judge further noted that continuing the litigation would be complex, costly, and time-consuming, justifying the settlement's structure.US judge approves 'novel' Clearview AI class action settlement | 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 Venezuelan deportees and all the legal confusion surrounding the case. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. 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: LBJ Federalizes Alabama National GuardOn March 20, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson took a decisive step in the fight for civil rights by federalizing the Alabama National Guard to protect marchers participating in the Selma to Montgomery march. This action followed the brutal events of "Bloody Sunday" on March 7, when peaceful demonstrators advocating for Black voting rights were violently attacked by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. A second attempt to march on March 9, known as "Turnaround Tuesday," ended without violence but still lacked sufficient protection.Johnson's decision to federalize the National Guard came after Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to ensure the safety of demonstrators, despite mounting national pressure. With federal troops in place, the march proceeded on March 21 under the protection of U.S. Army units, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Over five days, thousands of demonstrators walked the 54-mile route to Montgomery, with their numbers growing to 25,000 by the time they reached the Alabama State Capitol on March 25.This federal intervention was a turning point in the civil rights movement, demonstrating the government's willingness to enforce constitutional rights against state resistance. The Selma marches galvanized public support for voting rights and led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. Johnson's decision highlighted the power of federal authority to challenge systemic racism and protect fundamental freedoms.Thousands of probationary federal employees ordered reinstated by federal courts remain in limbo as the Trump administration fights lawsuits over workforce changes. Courts in Maryland and California ruled that roughly 25,000 employees must be rehired, but many are on paid leave instead of actively working. Some workers fear they may have to return their back pay if an appeals court overturns the rulings.Attorneys representing federal employees say agencies are slow to restore full duties or compensation. Ashley Ashworth, a reinstated Health and Human Services worker, said she was rehired but given no work, making her uncertain about her future. Adding to concerns, Trump's broader federal agency reorganization plans could lead to further layoffs, with probationary employees at the highest risk.Judges have pressed the administration for details on when affected employees will return, emphasizing that indefinite paid leave is not permitted. While agencies claim they are taking steps to reinstate workers, some employees have only received vague instructions about returning to duty. With legal battles ongoing, many fear their reinstatement—and pay—may be temporary.Fired Federal Workers Stuck in Limbo After Judges Order ReturnDisney shareholders are set to vote on a proposal urging the company to withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which ranks businesses based on LGBTQ-friendly policies. The proposal, backed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, follows similar exits by companies like Lowe's, Ford, and Harley-Davidson, which faced conservative pressure to scale back diversity initiatives.This effort aligns with broader conservative pushes, including those from the Trump administration, to dismantle corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Disney, which holds a perfect score on the index, has previously faced scrutiny for its opposition to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law.Similar shareholder proposals in the past have received little support, typically failing to reach more than 2% backing. The proposal also references backlash against brands like Bud Light and Target over LGBTQ marketing. Disney has defended its transparency in such matters and called the proposal unnecessary.Anti-DEI Disney Investors Press Vote on Abandoning LGBTQ IndexA federal judge warned the Trump administration of potential consequences if it violated his order temporarily halting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Judge James Boasberg expressed skepticism that revealing deportation details would compromise national security, especially after Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly shared flight information. Despite the order, three planes carrying deported Venezuelans landed in El Salvador, leading to questions about whether the administration defied the ruling.Boasberg requested details on the deportation flights, extending the administration's deadline to provide information. Trump's administration pushed back, arguing that the judge was overstepping his authority and that executive branch decisions on deportations were absolute. Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that appeals—not impeachment—are the proper response to judicial disagreements.Boasberg initially blocked the deportations, ruling that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act did not justify Trump's claims that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua's presence in the U.S. constituted an act of war. His order came after two deportation flights had already taken off. While some planes landed after the ruling, a third took off after the written order was publicly filed, raising further legal disputes. The administration defended its actions, arguing that some deportations were based on other legal grounds beyond the Alien Enemies Act.Judge warns of consequences if Trump administration violated deportation order | ReutersThe Trump administration is appealing a judge's order requiring Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide records related to their role in reshaping the federal government. The Justice Department argues that the order, which demands Musk and DGE disclose information to Democratic state officials, raises serious separation-of-powers concerns by compelling a presidential adviser and White House-affiliated entity to comply.The dispute stems from a lawsuit by 14 Democratic-led states alleging that Musk and DGE unconstitutionally exercised power by cutting federal programs, downsizing agencies, and accessing sensitive government systems. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling allows state officials to request documents and written responses but stops short of allowing depositions or direct questioning of DGE officials. Trump himself is not subject to the evidence requests.New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, leading the lawsuit, argues that DGE must provide transparency regarding its actions. The case follows other legal challenges against DGE, including a Maryland ruling that found Musk's involvement in shutting down USAID likely unconstitutional and another requiring DGE to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. The administration may escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if the appeals court does not intervene.Trump Administration Fights Order to Turn Over DOGE Records (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: Nevada Re-Legalizes GamblingOn March 19, 1931, Nevada Governor Fred B. Balzar signed a bill legalizing gambling, a decision that would reshape the state's economy and identity. At the time, Nevada was struggling through the Great Depression, and state lawmakers saw legalized gambling as a way to generate revenue and attract tourism. The measure made Nevada the first U.S. state to formally embrace commercial gaming, setting the stage for the rise of Las Vegas as the world's gambling capital.Initially, the law allowed for small-scale gaming operations, but over time, it evolved into a massive industry. In the 1940s and 1950s, organized crime syndicates invested heavily in Las Vegas casinos, fueling both the city's expansion and its reputation for vice. By the 1960s, corporate interests took over, bringing legitimacy and regulation to the industry. Today, Nevada's gaming industry generates billions in revenue and remains a cornerstone of its economy.The legalization of gambling also influenced other states, many of which later followed Nevada's lead by authorizing casinos and lotteries to boost their own economies. However, the decision was not without controversy—critics argued it would lead to crime and social problems. Despite these concerns, the success of legalized gambling in Nevada proved that, with regulation, gaming could be a major economic driver.Governor Balzar's decision on this day in 1931 not only changed Nevada but also helped shape the broader American gaming industry, making March 19 a landmark date in legal and economic history.A federal judge has halted Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from further efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ruling that their actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution. Judge Theodore Chuang's preliminary ruling orders the restoration of USAID employees' computer access after Musk and DGE had placed thousands on leave and blocked agency systems. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees, argues that Musk unlawfully took control of the agency without Senate confirmation, exceeding executive authority.President Trump, who had appointed Musk as an adviser, responded by vowing to appeal, calling the ruling an example of judicial overreach. While Chuang agreed that Musk's actions were unconstitutional, he did not reverse the termination of USAID contracts, which had already crippled global humanitarian operations. In a related case, another judge ordered the administration to release $671 million in frozen payments to USAID contractors, though the government has delayed full compliance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that over 80% of USAID's programs were being eliminated.US judge finds Musk's USAID cuts likely unconstitutional, blocks him from making more cuts | ReutersA federal judge rejected the Trump administration's attempt to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student arrested by immigration authorities for his role in pro-Palestinian protests. However, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that he lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to New Jersey, where Khalil was detained when his lawyers first filed the challenge. The ruling did not address Khalil's request for bail.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of Palestinian descent, was arrested on March 8 outside his Manhattan residence. His lawyers argue that his detention was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has justified his removal under a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing deportation if a noncitizen is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil's participation in "pro-Hamas events" as justification, though Khalil denies any ties to Hamas and claims he was a mediator in the protests.Legal experts note that this law was previously ruled unconstitutional by the late Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, though that decision was later overturned on a technicality. Khalil's case has become central to debates over immigration enforcement and free speech, particularly as Trump pushes for deporting noncitizens involved in campus protests.Judge denies Trump bid to toss Columbia student's challenge to arrest | ReutersChief Justice John Roberts issued a mild rebuke to President Donald Trump for calling for the impeachment of a federal judge, stating that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a judicial ruling. While Roberts' statement affirms judicial independence, it does little to address the broader issue: Trump's rhetoric is not just about disagreement with a ruling—it is part of a broader effort to delegitimize the judiciary and erode checks on executive power.Roberts has a history of making these kinds of statements, such as his 2018 remark that "we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges." But mere words are insufficient when Trump and his allies actively undermine the rule of law. The administration's refusal to comply with Judge James Boasberg's order halting deportations under a rarely used 18th-century law is more than a policy dispute—it is an act of defiance that inches toward a constitutional crisis. If the courts' authority is disregarded, the judiciary's power is only as strong as its willingness to enforce its rulings.Trump's call for impeachment is not an isolated outburst. It coincides with a broader push by his allies, including Elon Musk and congressional Republicans, to frame judges as enemies of democracy. Given rising threats against judges, the Chief Justice's response should have gone beyond a procedural reminder to file an appeal. A firm defense of judicial enforcement and the rule of law, backed by action from the courts, is needed—because if the judiciary allows itself to be treated as an advisory body rather than an independent branch of government, mere statements will not protect it.US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge | ReutersIn my column this week, I talked about grocery taxes–or more accurately their potential elimination in some states. With grocery prices remaining high, some states are considering eliminating grocery sales taxes entirely to ease financial burdens on residents. However, a blanket repeal could strain already-tight state budgets, especially as federal funding for social programs faces potential cuts. Instead of eliminating the tax entirely, targeted approaches—such as income-based exemptions or allowing municipalities to retain and reinvest grocery tax revenue—offer more sustainable relief.Income-based exemptions would ensure that low-income households receive the most benefit while maintaining revenue streams for essential services. For example, Idaho already provides grocery tax credits for low-income taxpayers, and a more efficient model could exempt qualifying households from paying the tax at checkout, reducing their financial strain. This method would prevent a full repeal that could destabilize state budgets while addressing the regressive nature of grocery taxes.States struggling with budget shortfalls from past tax cuts, like Arizona and West Virginia, serve as cautionary tales. Arizona's 2021 flat tax contributed to a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing cuts to higher education, while West Virginia's aggressive post-pandemic tax cuts created funding gaps that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Removing grocery taxes without a revenue replacement could lead to similar outcomes.Alternatively, allowing local governments to retain grocery taxes and use the revenue for food assistance, childcare subsidies, or public transportation could provide relief without compromising state services. Since different municipalities have varying fiscal needs, this approach would offer flexibility while ensuring that low-income families receive targeted aid.A well-designed policy would balance tax relief with financial responsibility, preventing unintended consequences like service cuts that ultimately harm those who need assistance the most.States Shouldn't Cut Grocery Taxes Entirely, Just Refine Them 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: Gideon v. WainwrightOn March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, fundamentally reshaping the American legal system. The case began when Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida man accused of burglary, was denied a court-appointed attorney because state law only provided counsel for capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. From his jail cell, he handwrote a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court unanimously agreed, ruling that states must provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This decision extended the right to legal representation to all criminal defendants, regardless of financial status, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial. The ruling overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had allowed states discretion in providing counsel. As a result, public defender systems were expanded nationwide, ensuring that indigent defendants received proper legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright remains a cornerstone of American criminal law, highlighting the importance of due process and equal justice. Today, the case serves as a reminder of how a single individual's persistence can shape constitutional rights for millions.Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status, creating a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill. Ikuta, appointed by George W. Bush, has served on the court for over a decade and is known for her conservative rulings. Her decision to step back adds to Trump's opportunities to shape the judiciary, as he previously appointed 54 appellate judges in his first term. The Ninth Circuit, historically liberal, has seen a shift in balance, with 16 Democratic-appointed and 13 Republican-appointed judges. Ikuta authored key opinions supporting Trump-era immigration and family planning policies. Before her judicial career, she worked as a journalist and later pursued law, clerking for prominent judges. Her transition to senior status will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor.Ninth Circuit's Ikuta to Step Back, Gives Trump Vacancy on CourtA U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it violated a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, potentially setting up a constitutional conflict. The administration defended its actions, arguing that courts lack authority over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime law. Judge James Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations, but flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members still proceeded. El Salvador's president shared footage of deportees arriving, seemingly defying the court's directive. White House officials denied wrongdoing, while Trump's border czar suggested they would continue the deportations regardless of judicial rulings. Legal experts countered that the government must follow court orders, regardless of where deportations occur. The ACLU and civil rights groups raised concerns over due process and the administration's broad use of executive power. Trump has increasingly tested legal limits since taking office, often facing judicial intervention. The outcome of this case could further define the balance of power between the presidency and the courts.US Judge Seeks Answers on Deportation of Venezuelans Despite Court OrderU.S. authorities deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Rhode Island doctor, to Lebanon after finding images and videos on her phone that they claimed were sympathetic to Hezbollah. She had also attended the funeral of Hezbollah's former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and stated her support for him from a religious perspective. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and officials said they could not determine her true intentions in the country. A federal judge had issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before her removal, but she was deported the same day. The Justice Department argued that proper notification procedures were followed, defending Customs and Border Protection against claims of violating the court order. Alawieh's legal team withdrew from the case, citing new diligence concerns. The court later sealed documents related to the government's explanation. The situation raises legal questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority.Doctor deported to Lebanon had photos 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah on phone, US 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: National Referendum on ApartheidOn March 17, 1992, South Africa took a decisive step toward dismantling apartheid through a historic national referendum. White South African voters were asked whether they supported the government's efforts to end apartheid and negotiate a new, democratic constitution. An overwhelming 68.7% voted in favor, signaling broad support for ending over four decades of racial segregation. This referendum provided then-President F.W. de Klerk with the political mandate to continue negotiations with the African National Congress (ANC) and other groups. The result was a major victory for the anti-apartheid movement, which had long fought against the country's system of institutionalized racial oppression.The referendum was limited to white voters, who had historically benefited from apartheid, making their approval a crucial moment in South African history. It paved the way for the country's first multiracial elections in 1994, in which Nelson Mandela was elected president. With this, South Africa officially transitioned from an apartheid state to a democracy, enshrining equal rights for all citizens. The vote also marked the beginning of legal reforms that led to the adoption of a new constitution in 1996. While the end of apartheid did not immediately erase economic and social inequalities, the referendum remains a defining moment in the country's legal and political history. It demonstrated that legal systems, even when designed to uphold injustice, can be reformed through democratic means.A federal judge ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) must reinstate probationary employees it had recently terminated. As a result, the agency is bringing back those workers, along with most term employees, and providing them with back pay. However, term employees with more than two years of service were not reinstated. The CFPB had initially fired 70 enforcement attorneys and up to 100 other employees after acting Director Russell Vought took over in February. The judge's decision is part of a broader legal battle over federal workforce reductions, with similar rulings affecting multiple agencies. Despite this setback, the Trump administration remains committed to deep staffing cuts across federal agencies, with reduction plans already submitted to the Office of Personnel Management. The firings had faced opposition from the National Treasury Employees Union, which reached an agreement with the CFPB to pause additional terminations while another court considers an injunction. The reinstatement process has been messy, with workers unsure of their status and vendor contracts disrupted. However, legally mandated CFPB functions, such as consumer response, are being prioritized for restoration.CFPB Brings Back Probationary Employees After Judge's RulingTrump has escalated his attacks on major law firms, this time targeting Paul Weiss, a firm known for representing top financial institutions and engaging in high-profile pro bono work. His executive order directs federal agencies to cut ties with companies that are Paul Weiss clients and suspend the firm's lawyers' security clearances. The move follows similar actions against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. Paul Weiss has deep ties to Wall Street, with clients including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Global Management. Some of these corporate leaders have criticized Trump's tariff policies, potentially influencing his decision to go after the firm.Trump's order highlights Paul Weiss's past work, including its involvement in a lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers over the January 6 Capitol riot. The firm has a long history of civil rights advocacy, from Brown v. Board of Education to LGBTQ+ and voting rights cases. Critics argue Trump's actions are politically motivated, targeting firms with Democratic connections while ignoring their bipartisan donor base. A federal judge previously blocked a similar order against Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss is expected to mount a strong legal challenge. However, even if the order is overturned, the chilling effect is real—firms risk losing business from clients wary of crossing Trump. Some industry experts believe this could push law firms to unite against political interference, but whether collective action emerges remains uncertain.Trump Fights Paul Weiss as Wall Street Seeks President's EarTrump targets law firm Paul Weiss in order restricting government access | ReutersThe Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants despite a federal judge's order blocking the move. The deportations targeted alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, whom the administration labeled as “terrorists.” The White House dismissed the court's authority, arguing that a single judge could not override the president's powers on immigration and national security. Judge James Boasberg had ruled that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations was unlawful, as the law applies only to conflicts “commensurate to war.” Despite this, flights carrying the migrants landed in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele publicly mocked the judge's ruling and confirmed the men were being imprisoned.Legal experts, including the ACLU, argue the administration is in open defiance of the court and may have violated constitutional checks and balances. The White House claimed that some migrants had already been deported before the judge's order, but it remains unclear if others were removed afterward. Critics see this as an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority, while Trump defended the deportations, calling the migrants "bad people" and insisting the situation amounted to war. The legal battle over these actions is expected to continue, with calls for the U.S. government to reverse any unlawful removals.Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authorityThe White House is taking an unprecedented role in overseeing the sale of TikTok's U.S. operations, with Vice President JD Vance leading the process. Instead of a traditional investment bank managing the auction, Vance's legal team is directly engaging with bidders and advising on their offers. President Trump has emphasized his control over the sale, claiming multiple groups are interested, while also suggesting the U.S. government could take a 50% stake in TikTok's American assets.The sale process is highly unusual, lacking a defined valuation or clear asset structure, and ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, has shown minimal engagement. Potential buyers, including investors like Frank McCourt and Kevin O'Leary, face an April 5 deadline to reach a deal. However, Beijing's involvement and the possibility that ByteDance could simply shut down TikTok in the U.S. add further uncertainty.While the U.S. government has previously intervened in corporate deals for national security or economic stability reasons, experts question whether TikTok meets such criteria. Trump, who initially sought to ban TikTok, has since acknowledged its role in helping him gain young voters. The app's sale price remains uncertain, largely depending on whether its valuable recommendation algorithm is included. With intense competition among bidders and political interests shaping the process, the outcome remains unpredictable.The White House's unusual role as dealmaker in TikTok sale | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this weekend, I lay out what I reckon is the Trump administration's plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. The Trump administration's proposal to eliminate taxes for individuals earning under $150,000 sounds appealing at first but carries severe consequences. Social Security and Medicare rely heavily on payroll taxes, which most workers in this income range pay more than income taxes. If these taxes are removed, the programs will be starved of funding, leading to either massive deficit spending, extreme benefit cuts, or a shift to regressive taxes like sales taxes. The proposal, combined with extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while leaving the middle class to shoulder the remaining tax burden. The TCJA already made corporate tax cuts permanent while setting individual cuts to expire by 2025, favoring the rich. If this new plan moves forward, those earning just above $150,000 could become the last major tax-paying bracket, while state and local taxes would likely rise to compensate. The ultra-wealthy, who benefited the most from previous tax cuts, are unlikely to pick up the slack. Rather than a tax break for workers, the proposal appears to be a backdoor attempt to dismantle entitlement programs. If no one is paying in, no one gets benefits out—a reality Trump's allies don't want to admit.Trump Administration's No Taxes Under $150k Proposal Is A Disaster 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